|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Size and Timing Matter for Title VII Claims
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an "employer" is defined as one with fifteen or more employees. In Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006), Arbaugh sued her former employer for sexual harassment in violation of Title VII. After the jury returned a verdict for Arbaugh, the employer moved to dismiss the entire action for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, because the employer had less than 15 employees. The employer argued that Title VII's 15-employee requirement limited the court's subject matter jurisdiction and thus could be raised at any stage in the litigation.
The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the 15-employee requirement was an element of a Title VII claim rather than a jurisdictional requirement. The Court reasoned that Congress could have made the 15-employee requirement jurisdictional—but did not. Instead, the provision containing the 15-employee requirement did not refer in any way to the jurisdiction of the courts. As a general rule, the Court explained, when Congress apparently decides against making a limitation on Title VII coverage jurisdictional, courts should not treat the limitation as jurisdictional either.
This case serves as a powerful reminder for employers and employment counsel of the importance of remaining mindful of both the jurisdictional and elemental requirements of Title VII claims. Had the employer timely raised the issue in a motion to dismiss, the adverse judgment—not to mention the cost of litigating the matter at trial and on appeal—would have been avoided. |
|
|
|
|
