A recent case, Stewart v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 22-cv-4734, 2025 LX 472669 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 19, 2025) reminded that moving too slowly in filing a timely EEOC charge can reduce your claims and chances of success.  A common and obvious defense strategy to age discrimination cases is to narrow the number of discrimination claims or instances and then focus on the last few issues. Counsel for Nissan successfully did that here, in part, because Mr. Stewart had delayed too long in filing an EEOC charge. He was timely only as to some claims. That reduced the field and the evidence available and led to the loss of his case.

Mr. Stewart started working for Nissan in 2001 as a technical specialist. He worked hard and saw promotions into various roles until finally he landed the position of Financial Services Manager in July 2015. He worked in that position until he was terminated on August 3, 2020. About 2 months before his termination, he was informed that his current position was being eliminated due to organizational restructuring. It was being consolidated with another position and so he was given the option of leaving the Company at any time or working until August 3 and then applying for other positions. If he did the latter, he could receive severance pay if he did not receive an offer for a comparable position.

Mr. Stewart took the 2^nd option and applied for 10 different positions, none of which resulted in a hire and so he was terminated. One position in particular, he failed to receive because a 32-year-old fellow was felt to be better qualified. He had experience in the area of the position while Mr. Stewart had very little experience. Mr. Stewart felt it was age discrimination to consolidate his position and cause him to lose the job after giving the company 19 years of service.  He complained about age discrimination to a few managers in June and July 2020, but never used the formal internal complaint process available.  After his termination, he also did not take any immediate action. He waited until May 24 of 2021 to file a charge with the EEOC alleging age discrimination, and retaliation for him complaining about the age discrimination resulting in him not receiving one of the 10 positions. Mr. Stewart filed a lawsuit on September 2, 2022.

Nissan defended the case contending that Mr. Stewart knew in June 2020 that he was being terminated, and thus his charge with the EEOC was made over the 300 day time limit required. Additionally, it argued that the failure to hire was also time-barred for 6 of the 10 job positions for which he applied. The court agreed with this mostly but noted the time bar applied to only 4 of the 10 positions.

However as to the 6 positions involving the failure to hire claim the court found "a reasonable jury could not conclude that defendants failed to hire Stewart because of his age … ." Stewart had demonstrated that he was equally qualified with the applicant hired, but he was required to demonstrate that Stewart's age played a role in that position. He had to demonstrate that the decision, which did not reference age, was pretextual. One position in particular, the younger applicant had sales experience in the sales position and Stewart had far less and that experience was over 20 years ago. Stewart then tried to point to various comments that were suggestive or indicated a distaste for older workers, however, they did not come from the individuals making a decision.

As to the retaliation claims, the complaints he had made about age discrimination were never communicated to the individuals involved in the hiring decision and so there was no basis for a reasonable jury to conclude that his complaints of age discrimination played a role in the decision.  In the end Stewart lost his case.

Those of us over 40 may move a little more slowly than we used to, but if you want to press an age discrimination claim don't hesitate too long. Otherwise, you may narrow your case. There are no exceptions to the time limit for uncertainty, fear, or age.  Make sure you contact the EEOC with the complaint within 180* days of the first event involving discrimination if in Alabama and many other states. In Alabama there is no entity to hear your charge other than a court, so the time limit is 180 days rather than 300 days. This was an Illinois case so given state law the longer time frame is applied.

*In general, you need to file a charge within 180 calendar days from the day the discrimination took place. The 180 calendar day filing deadline is extended to 300 calendar days if a state or local agency enforces a law that prohibits employment discrimination on the same basis. The rules are slightly different for age discrimination charges. For age discrimination, the filing deadline is only extended to 300 days if there is a state law prohibiting age discrimination in employment and a state agency or authority enforcing that law. The deadline is not extended if only a local law prohibits age discrimination.