October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1614

Does a 180-day filing deadline bar claims for ongoing discrimination?

Amtrak argues a strict deadline bars old claims. Morgan argues ongoing harm keeps claims alive.

Official caption
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Amtrak's lawyer cited prior cases to support a strict deadline.

    Morgan's lawyer argued that ongoing harm prevents claims from expiring.

    Amtrak's lawyer noted a circuit split against the Ninth Circuit view.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether a time limit bars discrimination claims based on continuous harm.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 9, 2002.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Amtrak wants the court to bar claims filed after 180 days.

Morgan wants the court to allow claims based on ongoing harm.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Amtrak argues the deadline starts when the first unlawful act occurs.

Morgan argues ongoing violations keep the claim from becoming stale.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.

Justice O'Connor noted a lopsided split among the circuits.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines how long workers can sue for continuous discrimination.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON