Fox v. Eaton Corp.

Decision Date15 December 1976
Docket NumberNo. 76-226,76-226
Citation2 O.O.3d 408,358 N.E.2d 536,48 Ohio St.2d 236
Parties, 14 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 623, 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11398A, 2 O.O.3d 408 FOX, Appellant, v. EATON CORPORATION, Appellee.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

State courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction of an action brought pursuant to a claimed violation of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Act, which provides for exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of the United States.

Appellant instituted an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County against appellee, claiming that appellee unlawfully discriminated against her because of sex in calculating her credit under an employee pension plan. The following pertinent facts were stipulated by the parties:

'Number five. That plaintiff has received the right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; such letter was received, on or about, December 6, 1974.

'Number six. That the plaintiff, pursuant to this right to sue letter, may bring a Title 7 action complaint in this court.'

The trial court entered judgment for appellee on the merits, and that judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Celebrezze, McGrath, Iler & Westley and James J. McGrath, Cleveland, for appellant.

John P. Palumbo, Cleveland, for appellee.

McCORMAC, Justice.

Appellant asserted a claim in the Court of Common Pleas based solely on a claimed violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1972, popularly known as the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Title 42, Section 2000e et seq., U.S.C.ode. As regards jurisdiction of a civil action by the person aggrieved, Title 42, Section 2000e-5(f)(3), U.S.Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

'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. * * *'

It is thus clear from the federal Act giving rise to the claim herein that subject-matter jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the proper federal court.

Moreover, appellant was so informed by the 'right to sue' letter referred to in stipulations Nos. 5 and 6, which read, as pertinent:

'Therefore, pursuant to section 706(F) of Title VII, you may within 90 days of your receipt of this Notice institute a civil action in the United States District Court having jurisdiction over your case.

'Should you decide to commence judicial action, you must do so within 90 days of the receipt of this letter or you will lose your...

To continue reading

Request your trial
186 cases
  • Brunson v. Wall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 24 Julio 1989
    ...338 N.W.2d 913 (1983); Scott v. Carter Wallace, Inc., 137 Misc.2d 672, 521 N.Y.S.2d 614 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1987); Fox v. Eaton Corp., 48 Ohio St.2d 236, 237, 358 N.E.2d 536 (1976). In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court to the contrary, and given the clear weight of authority against co......
  • Burns v. Daily
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 28 Octubre 1996
    ...the power to entertain an action, even where the litigants themselves fail to raise the issue. See Fox v. Eaton Corp. (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 236, 2 O.O.3d 408, 358 N.E.2d 536, overruled on other grounds Manning v. Ohio State Library Bd. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 24, 577 N.E.2d 650. Under these p......
  • Fox v. Eaton Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 21 Febrero 1980
    ...Fox's action for lack of jurisdiction. The Ohio Supreme Court decision was rendered on December 15, 1976. Fox v. Eaton Corp., 48 Ohio St.2d 236, 358 N.E.2d 536 (1976). On February 18, 1977, Fox filed this Title VII action in federal district court alleging essentially the same facts that ha......
  • Favors v. Alco Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 18 Marzo 1988
    ...v. Bd. of Administration of Public Employees' Retirement Systems, 184 Cal.App.3d 378, 229 Cal.Rptr. 69 (1986); Fox v. Eaton Corp., 358 N.E.2d 536, 48 Ohio St.2d 236 (1976).) Accordingly, our analysis will proceed along traditional, common law lines and we will not entertain arguments based ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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