Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court: Title VII Employee Threshold Does Not Determine Jurisdiction
The United States Supreme Court has resolved a significant issue regarding coverage under Title VII: whether the 15-employee threshold for determining whether an individual or entity is an 'employer' covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a substantive element of plaintiff's claim for relief, or a jurisdictional issue. (Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., No. 04-944 (2006)). In Arbaugh, the Supreme Court, reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, held that the 15-employee threshold is an element of a plaintiff's claim that must be challenged prior to trial on the merits. The Supreme Court's decision is significant because evaluating the number of employees as a substantive issue would allow a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and to retain discretion to hear pendent state law claims even if it dismisses the federal claims for failure to state a claim.
The Case
Arbaugh sued her former employer, the Y & H Corp., which operates the Moonlight Caf' in New Orleans, under both Title VII and Louisiana law in federal district court. A pretrial order signed by the parties and the trial judge stated that the court had jurisdiction over both the Title VII claims and the state law claims. However, the pretrial order did not list as a contested factual or legal issue whether Y & H had sufficient employees to be covered by Title VII. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in Arbaugh's favor.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?