Key points
- Federal, State and City law run separate clocks, so a claim that is late under one can still be on time under another: 300 days for an EEOC charge in New York, three years for a court action under the State Human Rights Law, and three years for a court action under the City Human Rights Law.[1][2][3]
- Under federal law a hostile work environment charge is timely if at least one act that is part of the same hostile environment falls inside the filing period, but each discrete act such as a termination has its own clock.[4][5]
- The City Human Rights Law pauses its three-year period to sue while a complaint is pending at the NYC Commission on Human Rights or the State Division of Human Rights.[3]
- When a federal court dismisses State and City claims it was hearing alongside federal ones, their limitations period is stopped for the time they were pending plus 30 days.[6]
- An internal complaint, a union grievance, arbitration or mediation generally does not extend the time to file an EEOC charge.[7]
A claim filed after its deadline is usually barred, and no rule on this page changes that starting point. But "the deadline" in a New York workplace case is rarely one date. Federal law, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) each run their own clock, and a claim that is too late for an EEOC charge at 300 days can still be within the three-year periods for State and City court actions.[1][2][3]
This page takes three questions in order: is every claim late, when did each clock start, and does any rule stop or extend it?
Step 1: Is every claim late, or only one?
| Claim and route | Layer | Time limit |
|---|---|---|
| EEOC charge under Title VII or the ADA | Federal | 300 days in New York[1][8][9] |
| Lawsuit under Title VII or the ADA | Federal | Within 90 days after the EEOC's notice of right to sue[10][9] |
| Race discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 | Federal | Four years for claims made possible by the Civil Rights Act of 1991; no EEOC charge[11][12] |
| Complaint to the State Division of Human Rights | New York State | Three years, for acts on or after February 15, 2024[13][14] |
| Court action under the NYSHRL | New York State | Three years[2] |
| Complaint to the NYC Commission on Human Rights | New York City | One year; three years for a claim of gender-based harassment[15] |
| Court action under the NYCHRL | New York City | Three years[3] |
| Whistleblower retaliation, Labor Law § 740 | New York State | Two years after the retaliatory action[16] |
The complete list is in the New York employment claim deadlines table, and retaliation statutes are compared in retaliation deadlines compared. One trap for older events: for discrimination before February 15, 2024, the State Division says its three-year period applies only to workplace sexual harassment and that the time to file other claims with the Division has expired.[14] That statement concerns the agency route; the three-year period for an NYSHRL court action comes from a different statute.[2] A caution on the federal 300 days: under the EEOC's regulation, where the state or local agency has not waived its 60-day exclusive period, a charge first presented to the EEOC is not deemed filed until that period ends, so a charge handed in late in the 300 days may not count as filed in time.[17]
Step 2: When did the clock actually start?
Federal law: discrete acts and hostile environments are counted differently
Under Title VII, the U.S. Supreme Court held in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan (2002) that discrete acts such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer or refusal to hire each start a new clock. A discrete act outside the filing period is time-barred even if it is related to acts in a timely charge.[5]
A hostile work environment is treated differently because it is made up of repeated conduct that cannot be said to occur on any particular day.[18] A charge is timely if at least one act contributing to the hostile environment falls within the filing period, and a court may then consider the entire period of the hostile environment in deciding liability.[4] There is a limit: if the act inside the period had no relation to the earlier acts, or an intervening action by the employer means it is no longer part of the same hostile environment, the earlier acts cannot be recovered for by reference to it.[19]
City and State law
Under the NYCHRL, New York's Appellate Division, First Department, has held that the City law is not bound by the narrower federal rule, and that a pre-period act is timely only if it is joined to actionable conduct within the limitations period.[20] For complaints at the State Division of Human Rights, the Division's rule says that if the alleged practice is of a continuing nature, its date of occurrence is deemed to be any date after its inception up to and including the date it ceased.[21] The guide to the continuing violation doctrine covers all three layers in depth.
Other start-date rules
- Resignation under intolerable conditions. In a constructive discharge claim, the U.S. Supreme Court held, for the 45-day deadline that applies to federal employees, that the period begins to run only after the employee resigns.[22] See constructive discharge.
- Pay discrimination. Under Title VII, an unlawful practice occurs each time wages, benefits or other compensation are paid as a result of a discriminatory pay decision.[23]
- Counting days. The EEOC counts calendar days, including weekends and holidays; if the last day falls on a weekend or holiday, the person has until the next business day.[7]
Step 3: Does any rule stop or extend the clock?
"Tolling" means a clock is paused, so that the paused time is not counted.[24] The rules below are specific; none is a general grace period.
| Rule | Layer | What it does | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agency complaint pending (Admin. Code § 8-502(d)) | New York City | Tolls the three-year period to sue under the NYCHRL from the filing of a complaint with the NYC Commission or the State Division, while it is pending and during court review of its dismissal[3] | No tolling where the complaint is dismissed for administrative convenience because of the complainant's malfeasance, misfeasance or recalcitrance[25] |
| State claims pending in federal court (28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)) | Federal | Tolls the limitations period for State-law claims heard under supplemental jurisdiction while they are pending and for 30 days after dismissal[6] | Applies to claims that were in the federal case; the period runs again after the 30 days unless State law gives longer[6] |
| Refiling after a non-merits termination (CPLR 205(a)) | New York State | Allows a new action on the same events within six months after a timely action is terminated[26] | Not after a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction, a dismissal for neglect to prosecute or a final judgment on the merits; the defendant must be served within the six months[26] |
| COVID-19 executive orders | New York State | Tolled time limits under New York procedural laws from March 20, 2020, through November 3, 2020, as an Appellate Division, Second Department decision reads them[24] | Concerns New York procedural time limits[24] |
| Labor Department investigation (Labor Law § 215) | New York State | Tolls the two-year period for a Labor Law retaliation suit from the filing of a complaint with the Commissioner of Labor until the investigation ends or an order becomes final[27] | Applies to that statute only[27] |
| Waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling | Federal | The EEOC charge period is treated like a statute of limitations and is subject to these doctrines[28] | An employer may in turn raise laches if the employee unreasonably delays and the delay harms the employer[28] |
Two more federal points matter for a filing that looks defective or late. A charge may be amended to cure technical defects, including a missing verification, and the amendment relates back to the date the charge was first received.[29] And a person whose state filing would be untimely under state law is still entitled to the extended 300-day federal period.[30]
What State law says about time spent at the Division
The City law states its tolling rule in a single sentence. For the NYSHRL the relevant texts sit in two different statutes, and how they combine is the least settled part of the subject. The texts say three things. First, where the Division dismisses a complaint for administrative convenience, for untimeliness, or because the election of remedies is annulled, the person "shall maintain all rights to bring suit as if no complaint had been filed."[31] Second, CPLR 204(a) provides that where the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not part of the time within which the action must be commenced.[32]
Third, where the Division annuls the election at the complainant's own request, the NYSHRL says that, notwithstanding CPLR 204(a), the right to sue is limited by the statute of limitations in effect in the court at the time the complaint was first filed with the Division.[31] How courts apply these provisions together is a question to take to a lawyer before leaving the Division late in the three years. The guide to election of remedies explains the annulment procedure.
What does not stop the clock
- Internal complaints and grievances. The EEOC says its time limits generally will not be extended while a person pursues an internal grievance procedure, a union grievance, arbitration or mediation.[7]
- An online report or inquiry. The NYC Commission says its statute of limitations does not stop until a verified complaint is signed, notarized, and mailed or personally delivered.[33] The State Division says a discrimination report is not yet an official complaint.[34] The EEOC says an online inquiry is different from a charge.[35]
- An EEOC charge, for a § 1981 claim. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that filing an EEOC charge does not toll the limitations period for a claim on the same facts under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.[12]
- An EEOC charge, for State and City court claims. The NYCHRL's tolling sentence names complaints filed with the NYC Commission or the State Division; it does not mention the EEOC.[3] Do not count on time at the EEOC being added back to the State or City three years.
What can make a deadline shorter than expected
- A clause in a job application or handbook. New York's general rule allows a shorter period by written agreement, and in March 2025 the Appellate Division, Second Department, enforced a six-month clause in an employment application and dismissed a suit filed one day late.[36] For NYCHRL claims, a term that shortens the time to file with the Commission or to sue is void.[37] See contracts that shorten your deadline to sue.
- A public employer. Under the State Education Law, an action against a school district requires a written verified claim within three months after the claim accrued, and the lawsuit must be commenced within one year, a period New York's highest court has applied to an NYSHRL damages claim.[38][39] See notice-of-claim rules for public employees.
- A federal job. Federal employees must contact an agency EEO counselor within 45 days.[40] See the 45-day rule for federal employees.
If a deadline really has passed
Work through the other claims before concluding that nothing is left. A person too late for the NYC Commission's one-year period may still be within the three years for a court action under the City law.[15][3] Under the NYSHRL, a person whose complaint the State Division dismisses as untimely keeps the right to bring suit on the State-law claim as if no complaint had been filed; the City law's list of dismissals that preserve a City-law suit does not include untimeliness.[31][41] And under federal law, time-barred discrete acts may still be used as background evidence in support of a timely claim.[5]
Civil time limits for sexual offenses are a separate subject, covered in sexual assault civil deadlines and revival laws. For everything else, write down the date of each event and of every filing you have made, then compare them with the table in Step 1. The page on what to bring to a consultation lists the records that help.
Common questions
I missed the 300-day EEOC deadline. Is my case over?
Not necessarily. The 300 days are the federal Title VII charge period in New York.[1] Court actions under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law each have a three-year period.[2][3] A federal race claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 needs no EEOC charge, and § 1981 claims made possible by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 have a four-year period.[12][11]
The harassment went on for years. Does it matter that most of it is old?
Under federal law, a hostile work environment charge is timely as long as all the acts are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one falls within the filing period; the whole period can then be considered.[4] An act inside the period that has no relation to the earlier ones does not bring them in.[19] Under the City law, an earlier act counts only if it is joined to actionable conduct within the limitations period.[20]
Did the COVID-19 orders extend my deadline?
For New York State time limits, possibly. An executive order issued March 20, 2020, tolled time limits for starting legal actions under New York procedural laws, later orders extended it through November 3, 2020, and the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that this was a true toll, so the period is excluded from the count.[24] That decision concerns New York procedural time limits; the federal EEOC charge period is set by a federal statute.[1]
A federal court dismissed my State and City claims. Is it too late to refile them in State court?
Not necessarily. Under a federal statute, the limitations period for State-law claims heard under supplemental jurisdiction is tolled while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed, and the U.S. Supreme Court has held that this stops the clock.[6] New York's CPLR 205(a) also allows a new action within six months after certain terminations of a timely action, if the defendant is served within those six months.[26]
Does complaining to HR or filing a union grievance pause the deadline?
Not for a federal charge. The EEOC says its time limits generally will not be extended while a person tries to resolve a dispute through an internal grievance procedure, a union grievance, arbitration or mediation.[7] The tolling sentence in the City Human Rights Law refers only to complaints filed with the NYC Commission on Human Rights or the State Division of Human Rights.[3]
Can a late EEOC charge ever be excused?
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that filing a timely EEOC charge is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a requirement that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling.[28] It has also held that the charge requirement is a mandatory rule a court must enforce when the employer raises it in time.[42] These doctrines are exceptions decided case by case, not extensions a person can plan around.
Sources
- 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- N.Y. C.P.L.R. 214(2); Koerner v. State of New York, Pilgrim Psychiatric Ctr., 62 N.Y.2d 442 (1984) (stating the holding of Murphy v. American Home Products Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 307 (1983)) — New York State Senate, Laws of New York
- N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502(d). — New York City Commission on Human Rights
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 117, 122 (2002) — Library of Congress, United States Reports
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113–14 (2002) — Library of Congress, United States Reports
- 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d); Artis v. District of Columbia, No. 16-460 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2018) (syllabus) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- EEOC, "Time Limits For Filing A Charge" — U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- EEOC, New York District Office, "Timeliness" (read 5 Oct 2026) — U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a); Jones v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 382 (2004) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 460–61 (1975) — Library of Congress, United States Reports
- N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(5) — New York State Senate, Laws of New York
- N.Y.S. Division of Human Rights, "Report Discrimination" — "Deadline for Reporting Discrimination" — New York State Division of Human Rights
- N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-109(e) — New York City Commission on Human Rights
- N.Y. Labor Law § 740(4)(a)-(b) — New York State Senate, Laws of New York
- 29 C.F.R. § 1601.13(a)(4)(ii)(A)–(B) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 115 (2002) — Library of Congress, United States Reports
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 118 (2002) — Library of Congress, United States Reports
- Williams, 61 A.D.3d at 72-73, 80-81. — static.case.law
- 9 NYCRR § 465.3(e) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (2016) (No. 14-613, decided May 23, 2016) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(3)(A)–(B) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- Brash v. Richards, 195 A.D.3d 582 (2d Dep't 2021); Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8), as quoted in Brash — New York State Unified Court System
- N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502(e). — New York City Commission on Human Rights
- N.Y. C.P.L.R. 205(a) — New York State Senate, Laws of New York
- N.Y. Lab. Law § 215(2)(a) — New York State Senate, Laws of New York
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393 (1982); National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 121–22 (2002) (laches wording from syllabus at 103) — Library of Congress, United States Reports
- 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b); Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 U.S. 106, 118 (2002) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co., 486 U.S. 107, 125 (1988) (holdings quoted from syllabus at 107–08) — Library of Congress, United States Reports
- N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(9) — New York State Senate, Laws of New York
- N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 204(a); N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(9) — New York State Senate, Laws of New York
- NYC Commission on Human Rights, "Contact Us"; "Report Discrimination" (pages read Oct. 5, 2026) — New York City Commission on Human Rights
- N.Y.S. Division of Human Rights, "Report Discrimination" and "What To Expect" — New York State Division of Human Rights
- EEOC, "EEOC Public Portal" (page read Oct. 5, 2026) — U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- N.Y. C.P.L.R. 201; Salati v. Northwell Health, 236 A.D.3d 951 (2d Dep't 2025) — New York State Senate, Laws of New York
- N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-109(e-1), 8-502(d-1) — New York City Commission on Human Rights
- N.Y. Educ. Law § 3813(1); Matter of Amorosi v. South Colonie Ind. Cent. School Dist., 9 N.Y.3d 367, 370-371 (2007) — New York State Senate, Laws of New York
- N.Y. Educ. Law § 3813(2-b); Matter of Amorosi v. South Colonie Ind. Cent. School Dist., 9 N.Y.3d 367, 369 (2007) — New York State Senate, Laws of New York
- 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.105(a)(1), 1614.106(b), 1614.407(a)-(d) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502(b). — New York City Commission on Human Rights
- Fort Bend County v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541 (2019) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School