Jenifer Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation, Dba the Moonlight Cafe (546 U.S. 500)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 22, 2006 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 546 U.S. 500 · 126 S. Ct. 1235
- Decided
- February 22, 2006
- Term
- October Term 2005
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns the distinction between two sometimes confused or conflated concepts: federal-court “subject-matter” jurisdiction over a controversy; and the essential ingredients of a federal claim for relief. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful “for an employer . . . to discriminate,” inter alia, on the basis of sex. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). The Act’s jurisdictional provision empowers federal courts to adjudicate civil actions “brought under” Title VII. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Covering a broader field, the Judicial Code gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over all civil actions “arising under” the laws of the United States. 28 U. S. C. § 1331. Title VII actions fit that description. In a provision defining 13 terms used in Title VII, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e, Congress limited the definition of “employer” to include only those having “fifteen or more employees,” §2000e(b). The question here presented is whether the numerical qualification contained in Title VII’s definition of “employer” affects federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction or, instead, delineates a substantive ingredient of a Title VII claim for relief. The question arises in this context. Jenifer Arbaugh, plaintiff below, petitioner here, brought a Title VII action in federal court against her former employer,…
Excerpt of a 27,656-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.