How an Employee’s Failure to Produce His EEOC Charge Ended His Title VII Claim

A March 2026 federal court decision in Farlow v. L3 Communications Integrated Systems LP offers an important reminder for employers defending Title VII discrimination claims: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charge of discrimination is not merely an administrative formality – it is a critical piece of litigation evidence. When a plaintiff repeatedly refuses to produce his own EEOC charge during discovery, a court may draw an adverse inference against him and grant summary judgment in the employer’s favor.

This case demonstrates the value of asserting administrative exhaustion defenses early, pursuing the EEOC charge persistently through discovery, and building a clear record of the plaintiff’s failure to cooperate.

For guidance on Title VII compliance and employment litigation strategy, please contact the ILS Legal Team at contact@consultils.com. We provide tailored legal solutions to help employers manage compliance risks and maintain operational stability.

Case Background

L3 Communications Integrated Systems LP (“L3Harris”) operates under a written code of conduct that expressly prohibits workplace harassment based on religion and other protected characteristics. In 2022, several employees came forward with complaints that their coworker, Charles Farlow, had been directing offensive remarks at colleagues who did not share his Christian faith. After an HR representative spoke with Farlow about his behavior, a second round of complaints arrived the following day, reporting that the same conduct had continued. L3Harris suspended Farlow while it investigated and, once the investigation concluded, terminated his employment.

Farlow obtained a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC in May 2023 and brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging both discrimination and retaliation. L3Harris moved to dismiss, and the court pared the case down to a single surviving claim: religious discrimination under Title VII.

From the outset of litigation, L3Harris flagged a potential jurisdictional problem. Its Answer included an affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, on the theory that whatever Farlow had alleged in his EEOC charge may not have encompassed the claims he was now pursuing in court. To test that theory, L3Harris sought the charge through discovery – formally, through depositions, and through follow-up emails – on at least four separate occasions. Farlow acknowledged at his deposition that he had the document. Still, he never produced it. When L3Harris moved for summary judgment on failure to exhaust grounds, the court ruled in the employer’s favor and closed the case.

Key Legal Reasoning

Title VII conditions a plaintiff’s right to sue on having first filed a charge with the EEOC. Courts treat this requirement as jurisdictional, meaning it defines the outer boundary of what a plaintiff can litigate in federal court. At the pleading stage, an allegation that an EEOC charge was filed is enough to get past a motion to dismiss. Summary judgment, however, operates on a different evidentiary plane. At that stage, parties must back their positions with actual proof, not mere assertions.

For Farlow, having conceded in his own deposition that the document was in his hands, his subsequent silence in the face of repeated formal requests gave the court a basis to infer that the charge’s contents would have been adverse to him. The court went further, observing that any attempt by Farlow to describe the charge’s contents through his own testimony at summary judgment would not have been enough. The document itself was the only evidence that could save his case.

Implications for Employers

What makes Farlow worth studying is that the employer’s victory had nothing to do with the strength of its substantive defense. L3Harris did not prevail by convincing the court that Farlow’s religious discrimination claim was unfounded on the merits:

• It prevailed because it identified a procedural vulnerability early, pursued the evidence that would expose it, and constructed a litigation record that the court could act on.

• The underlying facts of the termination were almost beside the point. Procedural defenses can end cases before a jury ever hears the facts.

• Employers and their counsel should approach every employment case with that full toolkit in mind.

Recommendations for Employers

1. Evaluate failure to exhaust at the outset and plead the defense in your Answer.

When a Title VII complaint arrives, one of the first questions to ask is whether the plaintiff actually filed an EEOC charge and whether the claims now being litigated fall within its scope. If there is any reason to doubt either, failure to exhaust should be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the Answer. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) treats this as a defense that can be lost if not raised promptly, so waiting to assert it later risks forfeiting what may be the most powerful argument in the case.

2. Make the EEOC charge a priority target in discovery.

The charge is the document that determines whether the plaintiff had a right to be in federal court at all. It should be among the first items requested, and that request should be renewed through interrogatories, document requests, deposition questions, and written follow-ups until the document is produced. Each unanswered request strengthens the employer’s position. A plaintiff who acknowledges possessing the charge but refuses to hand it over is building the adverse inference case against himself.

3. Keep a running record of discovery requests and the plaintiff’s compliance (or lack thereof).

Courts can only act on what the record shows. Every request sent, every deadline missed, every follow-up email, and every deposition exchange where a plaintiff admits to having a document he has not produced should be tracked and preserved. When an employer reaches summary judgment and asks the court to draw an adverse inference, the strength of that argument is a direct function of how thoroughly counsel has documented the other side’s noncompliance.

4. Do not equate surviving a motion to dismiss with having a viable claim.

A complaint that clears the pleading hurdle has done no more than that. The standard for defeating a motion to dismiss is low – an allegation of EEOC compliance is enough. But the standard shifts substantially once the parties move into discovery and toward summary judgment. Employers should not treat an early loss on a motion to dismiss as an indication that the plaintiff’s claim is sound. Weaknesses that cannot be exposed at the pleading stage may come into full view once discovery begins.

5. Build and maintain the documentation infrastructure that supports your defense before litigation begins.

L3Harris entered this litigation with several things working in its favor: a clearly written anti-harassment policy, a documented HR intervention, multiple employee complaints on file, and a record of the investigation that preceded Farlow’s termination. Employers who build those habits before any dispute arises give themselves a meaningful structural advantage when litigation eventually comes.

For guidance on Title VII compliance and employment litigation strategy, please contact the ILS Legal Team at contact@consultils.com. We provide tailored legal solutions to help employers manage compliance risks and maintain operational stability.

Disclaimer: The materials provided on this website are for general informational purposes only and do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal advice. You should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here. Please consult with your own legal counsel regarding your specific situation and legal questions.

---

As Managing Partner at ILS, Richard Liu ranks among the leading U.S. attorneys in corporate, employment, and regulatory law. He is known for crafting legal strategies aligned with clients’ business objectives and advising Fortune 500 companies, startups, and executives on corporate transactions, financing, privacy, and employment matters across the technology, healthcare, and financial sectors.

Before founding ILS, Richard practiced at top defense firms, where he developed a reputation for anticipating risks and designing strategies that balance protection with growth. He has secured favorable outcomes in contract and intellectual property disputes, represented clients in state and federal courts, and is recognized for combining large-firm expertise with boutique-firm agility. Richard is also a frequent speaker at industry and legal conferences.

Email: contact@consultils.com | Phone: 626-344-8949

Ruthie began her career as an associate at Gutierrez, Preciado & House, LLP, where she advised government entities on civil litigation matters. There, she managed an active caseload of matters from inception through trial. She has experience drafting complex legal documents including motions, discovery, and briefs. She has also played a key role in trial preparation including witness preparation, exhibit organization, trial document drafting, and trial strategy development.

During law school, she worked as a law clerk at Wallin & Klarich, where she conducted extensive legal research and analysis in all areas of criminal law. She also served as the Senior Online Editor of the UC Davis Law Review, as well as the Articles Selection Editor of the UC Davis Business Law Journal.

Email: contact@consultils.com | Phone: 626-344-8949