Document: 546 U.S. ___ (2006) JENIFER ARBAUGH, Petitioner v. Y & H CORPORATION, DBA THE MOONLIGHT CAFE No. 04-944. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 11, 2006. Decided February 22, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT. GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion Court, in which all other Members joined, except ALITO, who took no part consideration or decision case. Court. This case concerns distinction between two some-times confused conflated concepts: federal-court "subject-matter" jurisdiction over a controversy; and essential ingredients federal claim for relief. Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964 makes it unlawful "for an employer . to discriminate," inter alia, on basis sex. 42 C. §2000e-2(a)(1). The Act's jurisdictional provision empowers courts adjudicate civil actions "brought under" VII. §2000e-5(f)(3). Covering broader field, Judicial Code gives subject-matter "arising laws 28 §1331. fit that description. In defining 13 terms used VII, §2000e, Congress limited definition "employer" include only those having "fifteen more employees," §2000e(b). question here presented is whether numerical qualification contained VII's affects or, instead, delineates substantive ingredient arises this context. Jenifer Arbaugh, plaintiff below, petitioner here, brought action court against her former employer, defendant-respondent Y&H Corporation (hereinafter Y&H), charging sexual harassment. was tried jury, returned verdict Arbaugh total amount $40,000. Two weeks after trial entered judgment jury verdict, moved dismiss entire want jurisdiction. For first time litigation, asserted had fewer than 15 employees its payroll therefore not amenable suit under Although recognizing "unfair waste judicial resources" grant motion dismiss, App. Pet. Cert. 47, considered itself obliged do so because believed 15-or-more-employees requirement jurisdictional. We reject categorization hold threshold does circumscribe Instead, employee-numerosity relates adequacy Arbaugh's claim, could be raised defensively late law-suit, i.e., failed assert objection prior close merits. I set out below statutory provisions rules bear "an employment practice fail refuse hire discharge any individual, otherwise discriminate individual with respect his compensation, terms, conditions, privileges employment, such individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin." To spare very small businesses from liability, provided that: "[t]he term `employer' means person engaged industry affecting commerce has fifteen each working day twenty calendar current preceding year, agent ." §2000e(b).[1] requirement[2] appears asection headed "Definitions," also prescribes meaning, purposes, 12 Act.[3] broadly authorized exercise "all arising Constitution, laws, treaties States." surely "la[w] Ibid. 1964, however, when enacted, §1331's umbrella federal-question amount-in-controversy limitation: Claims §1331 unless controversy exceeded $10,000. See §1331(a) (1964 ed.). framed light, assured limitation would impede employment-discrimination complainant's access forum. thus contains own jurisdiction-conferring provision, reads: "Each States district place subject shall have subchapter." §2000e-5(f)(3).[4] amended 1980 eliminatethe threshold. Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments 1980, §2, 94 Stat. 2369. Since time, §2000e-5(f)(3), served simply underscore Congress' intention provide forum adjudication claims. Brief as Amicus Curiae 13; Tr. Oral Arg. 4. note, too, that, §1367, may "supplemental" state-law claims linked based law.[5] Plaintiffs suing avail themselves opportunity §1367 provides pursue complete relief lawsuit. did instant by adding complaint pendent state law independently qualify adjudication. lacks jurisdiction, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1), party, initiative, at stage even entry judgment. 12(h)(3) instructs: "Whenever suggestion parties matter, action." Kontrick Ryan, 540 443, 455 (2004). By contrast, "fail[s] upon can granted," 12(b)(6), post trial. Under 12(h)(2), endures up to, but beyond, merits: "A defense failure granted made pleading. pleadings, merits." Cf. Kontrick, U. S., 459. II From May 2000 through 2001, worked bartender waitress Moonlight Cafe, New Orleans restaurant owned operated Y&H. alleged Yalcin Hatipoglu, one company's owners, sexually harassed precipitated constructive discharge.[6] November filed District Eastern Louisiana. Her Louisiana law. 1-2. pleadings "ar[o]se VII" plus supplemental §1367. Record 01-3376 (ED La.), Doc. 3, p. 1 (Amended Complaint). Y&H's responsive admitted "jurisdictional" allegations denied contentions Id., 4, (Answer pretrial order submitted signed parties, later subscribed presiding judge, reiterated "vested [Arbaugh's claim] pursuant §1331," "ha[d] [her] §1367." 19, 2. listed "Uncontested Material Facts," including: "Plaintiff employed waitress/bartender Defendants May, 10, 2001 she terminated company." 3. It list among "Contested Issues Fact" Legal Issues" requisite number Record, pp. 4-5. Nor issue point consented before Magistrate Judge. §636(c). After two-day trial, found been constructively discharged violation antidiscrimination awarded $5,000 backpay, compensatory damages, $30,000 punitive damages. 5, 2002. later, lack 44. As sole ground motion, alleged, proceedings, "did employ [during relevant period] purposes." 2 (Memorandum Support Motion Dismiss Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction). commented "[i]t unfair resources permit [Y&H] admit try days then matter response adverse verdict." 47. Nevertheless, reciting text 12(h)(3), supra, allowed plead term. 47-48; Discovery ensued. dispute employee count turned status eight drivers, make deliveries restaurant, four owners (the Cafe's managers their shareholder spouses). noted, "[i]f either delivery drivers are counted persons shown journals, time." 27. reviewing parties' submissions, concluded neither nor owner-managers spouses qualified "employees" purposes. 32-43. Based determination, vacated favor dismissed prejudice, without prejudice. 23. Appeals Fifth Circuit affirmed. 380 F.3d 219 Bound decisions, held defendant's "failure deprives jurisdiction." 224 (citing, e.g., Dumas Mt. Vernon, 612 F.2d 974, 980 (1980)). Dismissal proper, ruled, record warranted conclusion owner-managers, wives were F.3d, 225-230, undisputed inclusion of" persons, id., 231. certiorari, 544 1031 (2005), resolve conflicting opinions Courts requirement, §2000e(b), element plaintiff's Compare, 223-225 (Title jurisdictional), Armbruster Quinn, 711 1332, 1335 (CA6 1983) (same), with, Da Silva Kinsho International Corp., 229 358, 361-366 (CA2 2000) jurisdictional); Nesbit Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 72, 76-83 (CA3 2003) (same); EEOC St. Francis Xavier Parochial School, 117 621, 623-624 (CADC 1997) (Americans Disabilities §12111(5)(A), resembling jurisdictional). III "Jurisdiction," observed, "is word many, too meanings." Steel Co. Citizens Better Environment, 523 83, 90 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). less courts, sometimes profligate use example, others occasionally described nonextendable limit "mandatory jurisdictional." See, Robinson, 361 220, (1960). But recent we clarified prescriptions, however emphatic, "are properly typed `jurisdictional.'" Scarborough Principi, 541 401, 414 (2004); accord Eberhart States, S. ___, (2005) (per curiam) (slip op., 4 7); 454-455. Carlisle 517 416, 434-435 (1996) (GINSBURG, concurring). now us proper classification covered employers employees. If conditions lower did, require erasure verdict. if courts' characterization incorrect, issue, merits case, late. Its stipulations, 6, speak merits, preclude vacation $40,000 favor. On jurisdiction/ingredient-of-claim-for-relief dichotomy, meticulous. "Subject cases erroneously need ability prove defendant bound predicate reliefa merits-related determination." J. Moore et al., Moore's Practice §12.30[1], 12-36.1 (3d ed. 2005) Moore). opinions, Second incisively "often obscure stating dismissing `for jurisdiction' some fact established, explicitly considering dismissal should claim." Silva, F. 3d, 361. unrefined dispositions "drive-by rulings" accorded "no precedential effect" authority suit. Co., 91. Cases genre Hishon King Spalding, 467 69 (1984), Arabian American Oil 499 244 (1991). involved lawyer partnership firm. ruled apply selection partners affirmed noted Court's reasoning "ma[de] clear petitioner's cognizable VII." U.S., 73, n. Disagreeing applies decisions. 73-78. That holding, said, unnecessary consider wisdom invocation opposed 12(b)(6)." latter, granted." 5. Our raised, decide, rubric decisions.[7] composed, abroad employer.[8] placed label. agreed view geographical reach statute. 246-247. En passant, copied petitioners' characterizations included "Definitions" section, "jurisdictional." 249, 251, 253. our turn characterization, cross swords it. 91 (declining follow treating nothing "turned [the issue] technically jurisdictional" case). short, prompted home absence rather claim. 247.[9] basic grants §§1331 1332. Section 1331 "[f]ederal-question" §1332 "[d]iversity citizenship" A invokes pleads colorable Constitution Bell Hood, 327 678, 681-685 (1946).[10] She presents diverse citizenship exceeds required amount, currently $75,000. §1332(a). invoked §1331, "aris[es]" law, specifies, prerequisite application, existence particular fact, "merits" mindful consequences typing 15-employee determinant First, "subject-matter involves court's power hear never forfeited waived." Cotton, 535 625, 630 (2002). Moreover, including independent obligation determine exists, challenge party. Ruhrgas AG Marathon 526 574, 583 (1999). Nothing indicates intended assure met. Second, instances, turns contested facts, judge review evidence own. 5B Wright A. Miller, Procedure §1350, 243-249 2004); §12.30[3], 12-37 12-38. satisfaction trier facts. Reeves Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 133, 150-151 (2000). Third, concludes must entirety. 16 §106.66[1], 106-88 106-89. Thus dismissed, along claims, fully determined 23, generally retains discretion 106-86 Of course, "jurisdictional," just delineating diversity-of-citizenship §1332. §2000e-5(f)(3) (authorizing VII), specifies akin §1332's monetary floor. separate "does refer way courts." Zipes Trans World Airlines, 385, 394 (1982). Given "unfair[ness]" "waste resources," entailed tying think sounder course refrain constricting leave ball court. Legislature clearly states statute's scope jurisdictional,[11] litigants will duly instructed left wrestle issue. ("Whether disputed (or both) question."). rank coverage jurisdictional, treat restriction nonjurisdictional character. Applying readily administrable bright line application relief, * reasons stated, reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. JUSTICE ALITO NOTES [1] same corporations wholly Indian Tribes, certain departments agencies Columbia, tax-exempt "bona fide private membership club[s]" (other labor organizations). [2] originally prescribed 25-or-more-employee threshold, §701, 78 253, lowered minimum Equal Employment Opportunity 1972, 86 103. [3] defined §2000e are: "person," "employment agency," "labor organization," "employee," "commerce," "industry commerce," "State," "religion," "because sex," "complaining party," "demonstrates," "respondent." [4] §2000e-6(b), authorizing suits Government enjoin "pattern practice" discrimination. [5] 1367(a) states: "Except subsections (b) (c) expressly statute, original related within they form Article Constitution. Such involve joinder intervention additional parties." [6] Pennsylvania State Police Suders, 542 129, 147 (2004) (constructive compensable includes employee's departure due harassment renders "working intolerable reasonable felt compelled resign"). [7] features Walters Metropolitan Ed. Enterprises, 519 202 (1997), supportive character requirement. Respondent 8-10. urges definitively correct legal standard, seen contends, determination fact. apparently stipulated leaving remand. 211-212. [8] subsequently extend protection citizens overseas. 1991, §109(a), 105 1077, codified §2000e(f) ("With foreign country," "employee" "includes citizen States."). [9] Commercial Office Products 486 107 (1988), featured Y&H, 12, plurality "[r]eactivation serves [a] useful function," "Title give enforce employees." 119, fleeting footnote addressed relative administrative provinces agencies. [10] invoking held, colorable, "immaterial solely purpose obtaining jurisdiction" "wholly insubstantial frivolous." 682-683; 89 (1998). belong category. [11] exercised prerogative restrict wide variety factors, them Certain statutes confer specific plaintiffs, §1345 (United officers), 49 §24301(l)(2) (Amtrak), defendants, 7 §2707(e)(3) (persons orders Egg Board); §1348 (national banking associations), exceeds, §814, falls 22 §6713(a)(1)(B), §1346(a)(2), stated amount. Other describe types §1339 ("any relating postal service"); §1347 commenced tenant common joint partition lands where tenants tenants"). few enacted restricts Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, 756-761 (1975) (42 §405(h) bars recover Social Security benefits).

Category: 1