Garnet Grant v. Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security

For almost 90 years, the Supreme Court has adhered to a rule of law, which it has characterized as inveterate and certain, that in the absence of a crossappeal, a party cannot “attack the decree with a view either to enlarging his own rights thereunder or of lessening the rights of his adversary, whether what he seeks is to correct an error or to supplement the decree with respect to a matter not dealt with below.” Morley Const. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 300 U.S. 185, 191, 57 S.Ct. 325, 328, 81 L.Ed. 593 (1937), citing United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435, 44 S.Ct. 560, 564, 68 L.Ed. 1087 (1924). THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS If the EEOC, on a complaint of employment discrimination under Title VII, renders a discrimination decision on the merits in favor of a federal administrative agency and against a federal employee, has the prevailing federal administrative agency waived its right, in Federal District Court, to seek dismissal of the federal employee’s lawsuit based on timeliness, where the federal administrative agency had raised the identical timeliness issue at the administrative level and the federal administrative agency did not cross-appeal from the EEOC’s decision on the merits?