Jurisdictional vs. Nonjurisdictional Matters

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.

Arbaugh worked as a bartender and waitress at a café and was, for the purposes of this opinion, concededly sexually harassed in such a way that she is entitled to compensation (constructive discharge). In the lower federal court, after Arbaugh won her case, her previous employer (Y&H) claimed that it did not fall under Title VII’s definition of an “employer” because Y&H did not employ 15 or more people. The application of the definition of “employer” was not contested before the trial ended. If this requirement, which is set out in the definitions section of the law, is “jurisdictional” the court would be required to throw the case out, but if it is an “essential ingredient,” or in other words, goes to the merits of the case and not to the subject matter for which federal jurisdiction is granted, the argument must have been made before the conclusion of the trial on the merits.

Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases arising under the laws, treaties, or the Constitution of the United States (including Title VII) and may exercise “supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims “linked to a claim based on federal law.” Here, the Court explains that often in what it terms “drive by jurisdictional rulings” courts will dismiss cases for ‘lack of jurisdiction’, when some threshold fact has not been met, where the court should have dismissed the case ‘for failure to state a claim.’ In order to explain the nature of the distinction, the Court explains that “because [subject-matter jurisdiction] involves the court’s power to hear a case, [it] can never be forfeited or waived,” and courts must investigate the matter even when it is not contested. Also, where subject-matter jurisdiction turns on certain facts, the judge may review that evidence and resolve the dispute. Finally, where subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking the court must dismiss the claim in its entirety.

The Court then sets out a rule to discern subject-matter requirements from merits-of-the-case requirements: “when Congress does not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character.” Simple, straightforward, unanimous.