{"id":3691,"date":"2019-06-04T15:45:59","date_gmt":"2019-06-04T19:45:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/employerdefensereport.com\/?p=3691"},"modified":"2026-03-12T15:56:21","modified_gmt":"2026-03-12T19:56:21","slug":"practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Practice Pointer: Cross-Check EEOC Charges and Complaints Filed in Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"shutterstock_judgeOn June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, <\/a><\/em>No. 18-525 (2019)<\/a> \u2013 holding that the filing of an EEOC Charge is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule.\u00a0 What this means is Title VII’s charge-filing precondition – i.e. requiring employees to go through the EEOC’s administrative complaint process before filing a discrimination lawsuit – does not necessarily affect the adjudicatory authority of the courts to hear Title VII claims that were not properly raised before the EEOC.\u00a0 Ultimately, the onus is on employers to identify and raise potential issues regarding improper claims.<\/p>\n

In 2010, the plaintiff \u2013 an employee of Fort Bend County, Texas \u2013 claimed that she was the victim of sexual harassment and retaliation.\u00a0 After filing a charge against Fort Bend with the Texas Workforce Commission (which was related to the EEOC), Fort Bend fired her for attending a church event instead of reporting to work.\u00a0 The plaintiff subsequently attempted to supplement her charge by handwriting \u201creligion\u201d on the intake questionnaire, but she did not amend the formal charge document.\u00a0 Upon receiving a right-to-sue letter, the plaintiff filed suit in federal district court alleging religious discrimination and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment.<\/p>\n

The district court initially granted Fort Bend summary judgment on all the claims.\u00a0 However, on appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court\u2019s ruling as to the retaliation claim but reversed its ruling on the plaintiff’s religious discrimination claim.\u00a0 When the case returned to the district court, Fort Bend argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the discrimination claim because the plaintiff did not state that claim in her EEOC Charge. \u00a0The district court ultimately agreed and granted Fort Bend\u2019s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff did not satisfy the charge-filing requirement and that the requirement qualified as jurisdictional.<\/p>\n

That decision was also appealed to the Fifth Circuit where it was reversed.\u00a0 The Fifth Circuit held that Title VII\u2019s charge-filing requirement is not jurisdictional and is instead a prudential pre-requisite to suit.\u00a0 The Fifth Circuit held that Fort Bend had waited too long to raise the objection and it was therefore forfeited.\u00a0 Fort Bend appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine once and for all whether Title VII\u2019s charge-filing is a jurisdictional requirement that can be raised at any stage of a proceeding or whether it is a procedural prescription mandatory if timely raised by the defending party or otherwise forfeited.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the Fifth Circuit\u2019s opinion in holding that the obligation to file a charge is part of a plaintiff\u2019s procedural obligations but not a jurisdictional requirement.\u00a0 The Court stressed the distinction between jurisdictional prescriptions and non-jurisdictional claim-processing rules, which \u201cseek to promote the orderly progress of litigation by requiring that the parties take certain procedural steps at certain specified times.\u201d\u00a0 Notably, the Court explained that a claim processing rule may be \u201cmandatory\u201d in the sense that a court must enforce the rule if a party \u201cproperly raise[s]\u201d it, but an objection based on a mandatory claim-processing rule may be forfeited \u201cif the party asserting the rule waits too long to raise the point.\u201d<\/p>\n

The question of how long an employer can wait before raising an objection or defense without risking forfeiture was not discussed by the Supreme Court.\u00a0 However, these issues will likely be litigated and developed in the lower courts going forward.\u00a0 What this means for employers is that they should closely examine and compare a plaintiff\u2019s complaint filed in federal or state court against the administrative charge filed with the EEOC or state administrative agency.<\/p>\n

To avoid potential issues, employers need to identify any potential discrepancies in claims filed with an administrative agency and claims filed in a Complaint immediately after the Complaint is filed.\u00a0 If a new claim is raised in a Complaint before a court, employers should take swift action to get those claims dismissed.\u00a0 In other words, employers should not and cannot wait to raise a failure to exhaust administrative remedies in litigation.\u00a0 Rather, employers should promptly file a motion to dismiss any claims that were not properly raised before the administrative agency.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, No. 18-525 (2019) \u2013 holding that the filing of an EEOC Charge is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule.\u00a0 What…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[815],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-discrimination-harassment-retaliation"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nPractice Pointer: Cross-Check EEOC Charges and Complaints Filed in Court - Employer Defense Report<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Practice Pointer: Cross-Check EEOC Charges and Complaints Filed in Court - Employer Defense Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, No. 18-525 (2019) \u2013 holding that the filing of an EEOC Charge is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule.\u00a0 What…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Employer Defense Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-06-04T19:45:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-12T19:56:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/05\/shutterstock_judge-ruling.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"667\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Daniel C. Deacon\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Daniel C. Deacon\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Daniel C. Deacon\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/61c4505ca15b06d097af1205b3c99ea0\"},\"headline\":\"Practice Pointer: Cross-Check EEOC Charges and Complaints Filed in Court\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-06-04T19:45:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-12T19:56:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":713,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2019\\\/05\\\/shutterstock_judge-ruling.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\\\/\",\"name\":\"Practice Pointer: Cross-Check EEOC Charges and Complaints Filed in Court - Employer Defense Report\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2019\\\/05\\\/shutterstock_judge-ruling.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-06-04T19:45:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-12T19:56:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/61c4505ca15b06d097af1205b3c99ea0\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\\\/\\\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2019\\\/05\\\/shutterstock_judge-ruling.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2019\\\/05\\\/shutterstock_judge-ruling.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Practice Pointer: Cross-Check EEOC Charges and Complaints Filed in Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/\",\"name\":\"Employer Defense Report\",\"description\":\"Conn Maciel Carey LLP\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/61c4505ca15b06d097af1205b3c99ea0\",\"name\":\"Daniel C. Deacon\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/cfe6f102b944caf05c990835bac908885b424b2124bd91411d7a7ff3676c837c?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/cfe6f102b944caf05c990835bac908885b424b2124bd91411d7a7ff3676c837c?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/cfe6f102b944caf05c990835bac908885b424b2124bd91411d7a7ff3676c837c?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Daniel C. Deacon\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/author\\\/deacondc89\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Practice Pointer: Cross-Check EEOC Charges and Complaints Filed in Court - Employer Defense Report","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Practice Pointer: Cross-Check EEOC Charges and Complaints Filed in Court - Employer Defense Report","og_description":"On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, No. 18-525 (2019) \u2013 holding that the filing of an EEOC Charge is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule.\u00a0 What…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/","og_site_name":"Employer Defense Report","article_published_time":"2019-06-04T19:45:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-12T19:56:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1000,"height":667,"url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/05\/shutterstock_judge-ruling.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Daniel C. Deacon","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Daniel C. Deacon","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/"},"author":{"name":"Daniel C. Deacon","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/61c4505ca15b06d097af1205b3c99ea0"},"headline":"Practice Pointer: Cross-Check EEOC Charges and Complaints Filed in Court","datePublished":"2019-06-04T19:45:59+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-12T19:56:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/"},"wordCount":713,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/05\/shutterstock_judge-ruling.jpg","articleSection":["Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/","name":"Practice Pointer: Cross-Check EEOC Charges and Complaints Filed in Court - Employer Defense Report","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/05\/shutterstock_judge-ruling.jpg","datePublished":"2019-06-04T19:45:59+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-12T19:56:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/61c4505ca15b06d097af1205b3c99ea0"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/05\/shutterstock_judge-ruling.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/05\/shutterstock_judge-ruling.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/practice-pointer-cross-check-eeoc-charges-and-complaints-filed-in-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Practice Pointer: Cross-Check EEOC Charges and Complaints Filed in Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/","name":"Employer Defense Report","description":"Conn Maciel Carey LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/61c4505ca15b06d097af1205b3c99ea0","name":"Daniel C. Deacon","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cfe6f102b944caf05c990835bac908885b424b2124bd91411d7a7ff3676c837c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cfe6f102b944caf05c990835bac908885b424b2124bd91411d7a7ff3676c837c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cfe6f102b944caf05c990835bac908885b424b2124bd91411d7a7ff3676c837c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Daniel C. Deacon"},"url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/author\/deacondc89\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3691","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3691"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3691\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9603,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3691\/revisions\/9603"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}