Federal vs state: how 180 becomes 300

The 180-day default

Title VII fixes the baseline at 180 calendar days from the most recent discriminatory act 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). The ADA 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) and GINA 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff-6 incorporate that same procedure. The ADEA 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1) mirrors the 180 baseline with a key qualifier: the 300-day extension only triggers when there is a state-level age-discrimination law and a state agency to enforce it — local ordinances are insufficient.

Three states are unambiguously 180-day jurisdictions for general Title VII bases (race, color, religion, sex, national origin): Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi. None has a designated FEPA covering same-basis private-sector claims.

Two further jurisdictions are 180-day in practice: Georgia (FEPA covers state employees only — private-sector claims default to 180) and North Carolina (NCEEPA provides no private right of action for non-age bases).

The 300-day extension

The deadline extends to 300 calendar days when two conditions co-exist 29 CFR § 1601.13:

1. The state or local agency has authority to grant or seek relief on the same protected basis as the federal claim.
2. That agency is designated as a "706 agency" by the EEOC. The canonical list lives in 29 CFR § 1601.74.

Worksharing agreements between the EEOC and each state agency typically waive the 60-day exclusive state processing period under Title VII §706(c), so the charging party retains the full 300 days at the federal level. Some states impose their own internal filing windows that run independently: California now allows three years under FEHA Cal. Gov. Code §12960(e); Illinois extended its window to 730 days post-2024; Ohio extended to 730 days post-2021; New York State Human Rights Law allows three years for general claims.

ADEA — local laws do not extend the clock

ADEA 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1) follows the same 180/300 structure but requires a state-level age-discrimination law and a state agency. The EEOC's published guidance is explicit:

How worksharing actually works — and what it does not

Worksharing agreements are the mechanical lever that makes the 300-day extension administratively viable. Without them, every dual-filed charge would sit in a state agency's exclusive 60-day processing period before the EEOC could touch it — most state agencies don't have the headcount to process every charge that lands. So the EEOC and each state FEPA agreed: the state agency waives its §706(c) exclusive period for almost every charge, in exchange for the EEOC routing the charge back to the state for the state-law claim if the charging party wants to preserve it.

In practical terms, this means a charging party files once. The verified charge form names the basis (e.g. sex discrimination) and the statute(s) invoked (Title VII + state FEHA). The agency that receives the charge forwards a copy to the partner agency, both treat the charge as received on the original filing date, and the EEOC begins investigating immediately. The state-court SOL — which runs independently — is not tolled by the federal filing. If you want state-court remedies, calendar the state SOL separately.

The ADEA wrinkle in practice

ADEA's extension requires state-level age law plus a state enforcement agency. This is narrower than the Title VII rule, which counts both state and local agencies. The practical effect:

• An age-only charge in Alabama (which has the Alabama ADEA — Ala. Code §25-1-20 et seq. — and the Alabama Department of Labor enforcing it) is a 300-day jurisdiction for ADEA despite Alabama lacking a Title VII FEPA. The age statute alone qualifies for the extension.
• A worker in New York City with only the NYC Human Rights Law's age provisions (not the state-level New York Human Rights Law) gets 180 days on the ADEA clock. The local ordinance does not trigger the extension.
• A worker in Wyoming, which has the Wyoming Fair Employment Practices Act (W.S. §27-9-101 et seq.) including age coverage and the Wyoming Fair Employment Practices Commission — gets 300 days on both ADEA and Title VII tracks.

When state law gives you longer than the federal extension

For four states the state-court SOL meaningfully exceeds the federal 300 days. The dual-filing posture there is unusual: filing the federal charge does not toll the state clock, but the state clock runs substantially longer, so a federal-deadline miss is not a complete bar.

• California — FEHA SOL is 3 years (1,095 days) since AB 9 (2020), per Cal. Gov. Code §12960(e). California also covers more protected bases than Title VII (ancestry, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, military status, medical condition).
• Illinois — IHRA filing window extended to 730 days in 2024 (was 180 days previously, then 300 days post-2010).
• Ohio — state-court SOL was significantly compressed and rearchitected post-2021; current state-court SOL is 2 years on most bases.
• New York — NY State HRL allows 3 years; NYC HRL also 3 years; both run independently of the federal clock.

Even in these states, the federal 300-day window is the one the EEOC uses. State-court remedies under FEHA / IHRA / NY HRL run on the state-law clock. A charging party who wants both has to satisfy both — file federal within 300, file state within whatever state law says.

The federal-employee carve-out

Federal civilian employees and applicants do not use any of this. The 45-day agency EEO counselor contact rule under 29 CFR §1614.105 replaces the 180/300-day EEOC charge process entirely. There is no state FEPA equivalent; there is no worksharing agreement between the federal agency EEO offices and any state. The "mixed case" appeal path (MSPB + EEO simultaneously) is the closest thing to a parallel-track posture, and it's federal-only. Read the federal-employee path pillar →

OFCCP for federal contractors

Federal-contractor employees follow the standard 180/300-day EEOC charge process for Title VII / ADA / ADEA / GINA claims. They may also have a parallel OFCCP complaint path under Executive Order 11246 (race / color / religion / sex / national origin) and Executive Order 13988 (sexual orientation / gender identity, post-2021). The OFCCP route does not replace the EEOC charge — it sits alongside, with different timelines and different remedies (administrative compliance review rather than individual back-pay). Which track makes sense is fact-specific and is generally an attorney-counsel decision.