Raygor v. University of Minnesota, C1-99-1140

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation534 U.S. 533
Decision Date11 January 2000
PartiesLance Raygor, et al., Appellants, vs. University of Minnesota, a Minnesota State University, Respondent. C1-99-1140 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Filed
Docket NumberC1-99-1140
534 U.S. 533

Lance Raygor, et al., Appellants,
vs.
University of Minnesota, a Minnesota State University, Respondent.

C1-99-1140

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

Filed January 11, 2000

Hennepin County District Court

Lance Raygor, et al., Appellants,
vs.
University of Minnesota, a Minnesota State University, Respondent.

C1-99-1140

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

Filed January 11, 2000

Hennepin County District Court

File No. EM97013937

SYLLABUS

1. The assertion of an Eleventh Amendment defense does not vitiate or destroy a federal district court's original jurisdiction over claims involving federal questions or the court's mandatory, supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1994).

2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) (1994), the limitations period for asserting claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act is tolled during the pendency of a federal district court action alleging similar claims and claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), even though the federal district court action was ultimately dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.

3. When the defendant is not prejudiced and when the plaintiff's decision to file an action including both federal and state claims first in federal district court was legally sound, the limitation period under state law may be equitably tolled pending a decision in federal district court.

Howard Bolter, Borkon, Ramstead, Mariani & Letourneau, Ltd., 485 Northstar East, 608 Second Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55402-1959 (for appellants)

Andrew D. Parker, Matthew E. Johnson, Smith Parker, P.L.L.P., 808 Colwell Building, 123 North Third St., Minneapolis, MN 55401 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Holtan, Judge.(FN*)

Reversed

Klaphake, Judge

OPINION

KLAPHAKE, Judge

Appellants Lance Raygor and James Goodchild brought this action against their employer, respondent University of Minnesota (University), alleging age discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. § 363.01-.20 (1996). The University moved to dismiss, arguing that the MHRA's 45-day statute of limitations had lapsed and was not tolled by 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (d) (1994). The district court agreed and granted the University's motion. We reverse.

FACTS

In August 1995, appellants filed separate charges with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) alleging age discrimination against the University. By letters dated July 17, 1996, the MDHR dismissed the charges and notified appellants that they had 45 days in which to file civil suits in state district court. See Minn. Stat. § 363.14, subd. 1 (1996) (person may bring civil action in state district court within 45 days after receipt of notice that commissioner has dismissed charge).

On August 30, 1996, appellants sued the University in federal district court. They each alleged one claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1974 (ADEA) and one claim under the MHRA. Their actions were consolidated.

Nine months later, the University moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The University argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the ADEA and the MHRA claims because the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court against a state by citizens of that or another state. The federal district court granted the University's motion and dismissed appellants' claims without prejudice.

Appellants challenged the federal district court's decision in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal has been stayed pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in another case involving the issue of whether an ADEA claim against a state is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 139 F.3d 1426 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. granted, 119 S. Ct. 901 (1999).

Twenty days...

To continue reading

Request your trial
317 practice notes
  • Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 03, 2010
    • June 3, 2010
    ...League, 541 U.S. 125, 132-33 (2004) (``any entity'' includes private but not public entities); Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, (2002) (``implying a narrow interpretation of * * * `any claim asserted' so as to exclude certain claims dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds'......
  • Yul Chu v. Miss. State Univ., Civil Action No. 1:08–CV–00232–GHD–DAS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Mississippi
    • October 3, 2012
    ...granting federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). See Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 541–42, 122 S.Ct. 999, 152 L.Ed.2d 27 (2002). 5. Because the Section 1983 claims and breach of contract claim for monetary relief against th......
  • Lefever v. Dawson Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 4:20CV3066
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • August 3, 2020
    ...court regardless of the basis for otherwise appropriate subject matter jurisdiction." Id.; see Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 541-42 (2002) (holding the Eleventh Amendment bars actions in federal court even where 28 U.S.C. § 1367, in general, authorizes supplemental juri......
  • Rosario Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc., No. 02-2530.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • June 2, 2004
    ...in Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 104 L.Ed.2d 593 (1989). See generally Raygor v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 539-40, 122 S.Ct. 999, 152 L.Ed.2d 27 (2002). Finley did not deal with the amount-in-controversy requirement. Rather, the plaintiff in Finle......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
311 cases
  • Yul Chu v. Miss. State Univ., Civil Action No. 1:08–CV–00232–GHD–DAS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Mississippi
    • October 3, 2012
    ...granting federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). See Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 541–42, 122 S.Ct. 999, 152 L.Ed.2d 27 (2002). 5. Because the Section 1983 claims and breach of contract claim for monetary relief against th......
  • Lefever v. Dawson Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 4:20CV3066
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • August 3, 2020
    ...court regardless of the basis for otherwise appropriate subject matter jurisdiction." Id.; see Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 541-42 (2002) (holding the Eleventh Amendment bars actions in federal court even where 28 U.S.C. § 1367, in general, authorizes supplemental juri......
  • Rosario Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc., No. 02-2530.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • June 2, 2004
    ...in Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 104 L.Ed.2d 593 (1989). See generally Raygor v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 539-40, 122 S.Ct. 999, 152 L.Ed.2d 27 (2002). Finley did not deal with the amount-in-controversy requirement. Rather, the plaintiff in Finle......
  • Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Morris, Case No. 2:15–cv–0798–JEO.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • July 31, 2015
    ...Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 558–59, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005) ; Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 540, 122 S.Ct. 999, 152 L.Ed.2d 27 (2002) (indicating that § 1367(a) overruled Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 104 L.Ed.......
  • 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