The Rhode Island Civil Rights Act of 1990 (“RICRA”) is one of the laws under which employees may bring discrimination claims. RICRA was enacted without a built-in statute of limitations. As a result, there has been an ongoing controversy over what statute of limitation should apply. On June 27, 2007, the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Horn v. Southern Union Co., 2007 WL 1858979 (R.I. 2007) held that the statute of limitations applicable to employment discrimination claims asserted under the RICRA is one year. By addressing the statute of limitations issue, the Court’s ruling rejected the First Circuit’s decision in Rathbun v. Autozone, Inc., 361 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 2004), where the federal court concluded RICRA actions are governed by Rhode Island’s three-year residual statute of limitations for injuries to the person, R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14(b). This is good news for employers.

THE RATHBUN V. AUTOZONE, INC. DECISION

In Rathbun v. Autozone, Inc., the plaintiff brought an employment discrimination action before the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island grounded on two state statutes – the RICRA and the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act (“FEPA”), R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-1 et seq. Plaintiff’s claims under the FEPA were barred by the FEPA’s one year statute of limitations, but it was unclear whether plaintiff could still bring claims under the RICRA. Because the Rhode Island Supreme Court had not decided what the correct statute of limitations was, the First Circuit sought to ascertain the rule the Supreme Court would most likely follow under the circumstances.

The court concluded that the RICRA actions are governed by Rhode Island’s three-year residual statute of limitations for injuries to the person. In determining that the FEPA’s statute of limitations did not apply to the RICRA claims, the court rejected the argument that the REPA and the RICRA are duplicative and complementary statutes requiring application of the same rule of timeliness. The court reasoned that the FEPA is intended to foster equality of employment opportunities and is principally directed at employers. The RICRA is a civil rights statute that sweeps far more broadly than the FEPA, covering a host of situations, many of which do not involve the employer-employee relationship at all.

THE HORN V. SOUTHERN UNION CO. DECISION

In Horn v. Southern Union Co., the Supreme Court rejected the First Circuit’s decision and held that the statute of limitations applicable to employment discrimination claims asserted under the RICRA is one year. The Court did not examine the applicability of Rhode Island’s threeyear residual statute of limitations. Instead, the Court reached its holding by engrafting onto the RICRA the one-year statute of limitations contained in the FEPA. The Court reasoned that the protections against discrimination afforded by the RICRA are in many respects duplicative of those afforded by the FEPA; therefore, the two statutes are complementary employment discrimination statutes.

In analyzing the RICRA’s silence on the statute issue of limitations, the Court found significant the fact that the FEPA represented the only time the General Assembly had specifically addressed the time limitation for bringing an action for employment discrimination. The Court stated that the FEPA “reflects the General Assembly’s weighing of policy considerations and its legislative judgment that one year is the appropriate amount of time within which claims of employment discrimination should be brought.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that harmonization of the two statutes is necessary when determining what statute of limitations applies to employment discrimination claims pursuant to the RICRA.

This is a significant decision for Rhode Island employers. It means that employees have one year to bring claims of discrimination rather than three years.