On June 19, 2015, in Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded an order of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing plaintiff's Title VII claim on the basis of his failure to allege that he had exhausted his administrative remedies (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.). The Second Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint because exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing a Title VII action in federal court was not a jurisdictional requirement, but rather a precondition of suit that may be subject to equitable defenses (No. 12-336-CV, (2d Cir. June 19, 2015)).

Cole Fowlkes filed a Title VII suit against his labor union, Ironworkers Local 40, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and retaliation for filing an earlier action against them. While having previously initiated a proceeding before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Fowlkes failed to allege in his complaint that he had exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. As a result, the district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Title VII claim and dismissed the complaint.

On appeal, the Second Circuit clarified that the failure of a Title VII plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies did not raise a jurisdictional bar to the claim proceeding in federal court and the court's consideration of those claims. The court stated that any ambiguity as to whether Fowlkes properly exhausted his claims had no bearing on the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court.

The Second Circuit underscored that the mischaracterization of a Title VII plaintiff's administrative exhaustion requirement as "jurisdictional" has practical effect. While a court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements, a mandatory prerequisite to suit may be subject to equitable defenses (Bowles v. Russel, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007)). The court explained that by treating the issue of subject matter jurisdiction as a threshold matter, the district court did not consider any potential equitable defenses that Fowlkes might have presented to excuse his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

The Second Circuit stated that Fowlkes' failure to exhaust administrative remedies could potentially have been excused pursuant to the equitable defenses of futility or "reasonable relatedness." The district court, however, having ruled that it lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to consider Fowlkes' claims, did not have an opportunity to consider whether any equitable doctrines excused Fowlkes' failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. As a result, the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the district court and remanded the matter for consideration of any equitable defenses.