Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.

Decision Date22 February 2006
Docket NumberNo. 04-944.,04-944.
Citation126 S. Ct. 1235,546 U.S. 500
PartiesJENIFER ARBAUGH, PETITIONER v. Y & H CORPORATION, DBA THE MOONLIGHT CAFE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

JUDGES: GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except ALITO, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

OPINION BY: GINSBURG

OPINION

JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the distinction between two sometimes confused or conflated concepts: federal-court "subject-matter" jurisdiction over a controversy; and the essential ingredients of a federal claim for relief. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful "for an employer . . . to discriminate," inter alia, on the basis of sex. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The Act's jurisdictional provision empowers federal courts to adjudicate civil actions "brought under" Title VII. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Covering a broader field, the Judicial Code gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over all civil actions "arising under" the laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Title VII actions fit that description. In a provision defining 13 terms used in Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, Congress limited the definition of "employer" to include only those having "fifteen or more employees," § 2000e(b). The question here presented is whether the numerical qualification contained in Title VII's definition of "employer" affects federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction or, instead, delineates a substantive ingredient of a Title VII claim for relief.

The question arises in this context. Jenifer Arbaugh, plaintiff below, petitioner here, brought a Title VII action in federal court against her former employer, defendant-respondent Y & H Corporation (hereinafter Y&H), charging sexual harassment. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for Arbaugh in the total amount of $ 40,000. Two weeks after the trial court entered judgment on the jury verdict, Y&H moved to dismiss the entire action for want of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. For the first time in the litigation, Y&H asserted that it had fewer than 15 employees on its payroll and therefore was not amenable to suit under Title VII.

Although recognizing that it was "unfair and a waste of judicial resources" to grant the motion to dismiss, App. to Pet. for Cert. 47, the trial court considered itself obliged to do so because it believed that the 15-or-more-employees requirement was jurisdictional. We reject that categorization and hold that the numerical threshold does not circumscribe federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, the employee-numerosity requirement relates to the substantive adequacy of Arbaugh's Title VII claim, and therefore could not be raised defensively late in the lawsuit, i.e., after Y&H had failed to assert the objection prior to the close of trial on the merits.

I

We set out below statutory provisions and rules that bear on this case. Title VII makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To spare very small businesses from Title VII liability, Congress provided that:

"the term 'employer' means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person . . . ." § 2000e(b). 1

This employee-numerosity requirement 2 appears in a section headed "Definitions," § 2000e, which also prescribes the meaning, for Title VII purposes, of 12 other terms used in the Act. 3

Congress has broadly authorized the federal courts to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Title VII surely is a "law of the United States." Ibid. In 1964, however, when Title VII was enacted, § 1331's umbrella provision for federal-question jurisdiction contained an amount-in-controversy limitation: Claims could not be brought under § 1331 unless the amount in controversy exceeded $ 10,000. See § 1331(a) (1964 ed.). Title VII, framed in that light, assured that the amount-in-controversy limitation would not impede an employment-discrimination complainant's access to a federal forum. The Act thus contains its own jurisdiction-conferring provision, which reads:

"Each United States district court and each United States court of a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). 4

Congress amended 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in 1980 to eliminate the amount-in-controversy threshold. See Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments Act of 1980, § 2, 94 Stat. 2369. Since that time, Title VII's own jurisdictional provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), has served simply to underscore Congress' intention to provide a federal forum for the adjudication of Title VII claims. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13; Tr. of Oral Arg. 4.

We note, too, that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, federal courts may exercise "supplemental" jurisdiction over state-law claims linked to a claim based on federal law. 5 Plaintiffs suing under Title VII may avail themselves of the opportunity § 1367 provides to pursue complete relief in a federal-court lawsuit. Arbaugh did so in the instant case by adding to her federal complaint pendent claims arising under state law that would not independently qualify for federal-court adjudication.

The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1), may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment. Rule 12(h)(3) instructs: "Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action." See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455, 124 S. Ct. 906, 157 L. Ed. 2d 867 (2004). By contrast, the objection that a complaint "fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," Rule 12(b)(6), may not be asserted post trial. Under Rule 12(h)(2), that objection endures up to, but not beyond, trial on the merits: "A defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted . . . may be made in any pleading . . . or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits." Cf. Kontrick, 540 U.S., at 459, 124 S. Ct. 906, 157 L. Ed. 2d 867.

II

From May 2000 through February 2001, Jenifer Arbaugh worked as a bartender and waitress at the Moonlight Cafe, a New Orleans restaurant owned and operated by Y&H. Arbaugh alleged that Yalcin Hatipoglu, one of the company's owners, sexually harassed her and precipitated her constructive discharge. 6 In November 2001, Arbaugh filed suit against Y&H in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Her complaint asserted claims under Title VII and Louisiana law. App. to Pet. for Cert. 1-2.

Arbaugh's pleadings alleged that her federal claim "arose under Title VII" and that the Federal District Court had jurisdiction over this claim under § 1331 plus supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims under § 1367. Record, Doc. 3, p. 1 (Amended Complaint). Y&H's responsive pleadings admitted Arbaugh's "jurisdictional" allegations but denied her contentions on the merits. Id., Doc. 4, p. 1 (Answer to Complaint). The pretrial order submitted and signed by the parties, and later subscribed by the presiding judge, reiterated that the court was "vested with jurisdiction over [Arbaugh's Title VII claim] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331," and "had supplemental jurisdiction over [her] state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367." Id., Doc. 19, p. 2. The order listed "Uncontested Material Facts," including: "Plaintiff was employed as a waitress/bartender at the Moonlight for Defendants from May, 2000 through February 10, 2001 when she terminated her employment with the company." Id., p. 3. It did not list among "Contested Issues of Fact" or "Contested Legal Issues" the question whether Y&H had the requisite number of employees under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). Record, Doc. 19, pp. 4-5. Nor was the issue raised at any other point pretrial or at trial.

The parties consented to trial before a Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After a two-day trial, the jury found that Arbaugh had been sexually harassed and constructively discharged in violation of Title VII and Louisiana antidiscrimination law. The verdict awarded Arbaugh $ 5,000 in backpay, $ 5,000 in compensatory damages, and $ 30,000 in punitive damages. The trial court entered judgment for Arbaugh on November 5, 2002.

Two weeks later, Y&H filed a motion under Federal Rule 12(h)(3) to dismiss Arbaugh's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Record, Doc. 44. As sole ground for the motion, Y&H alleged, for the first time in the proceedings, that it "did not employ fifteen or more employees [during the relevant period] and thus is not an employer for Title VII purposes." Id., p. 2 (Memorandum in Support of Rule 12(h)(3) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction). The trial court commented that "it is unfair and a waste of judicial resources to permit [Y&H] to admit Arbaugh's allegations of jurisdiction, try the case for two days and then assert a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in response to an adverse jury verdict." App. to Pet. for Cert. 47. Nevertheless, reciting the text of Rule 12(h)(3), see supra, at 506, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1097, the trial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
88 cases
  • Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 22 Febrero 2006
  • Carter v. McHugh, EP–11–CV–456–KC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • 23 Abril 2012
    ...(2011); Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 1244–45, 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2010); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 510, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006). The Supreme Court explained that the phrase jurisdiction “is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Arbaug......
  • Arnold v. Melwani
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. U.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone
    • 9 Enero 2013
    ...matter jurisdiction. Americopters, LLC v.. Fed. Aviation Admin., 441 F.3d 726, 732 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) ("If subject-matter jurisdiction turns on contested facts, the trial judge may be authorized to review the evidence and resolve ......
  • Appaloosa Inv. LP I v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • 8 Junio 2020
    ...(1998). Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or forfeited because it "involves a court's power to hear a case." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002)). "Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Pretrial Practice. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • 5 Mayo 2013
    ...§§19:490, 19:560 Arabian Shield Dev. Co. v. Hunt , 808 SW2d 577 (TexApp — Dallas 1991, writ denied), §3:412 Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp ., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), §9:436 Archer v. Griffith , 390 SW2d 735 (Tex 1964), §1:177 Arco Oil & Gas Co. v. Marshall , 30 SW3d 469 (TexApp — San Antonio 2000,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT