Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation

Fifth Circuit

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation

446 F.3d 573, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9279, 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,323

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 13, 2006

Docket03-30365

StatusPublished

This text of 446 F.3d 573 (Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation, 446 F.3d 573, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9279, 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,323 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ‘ UNITED STATES

Before GARZA, DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On August 2, 2004, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Arbaugh’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under our binding precedent, which held that a failure to qualify as an “employer” with fifteen employees under Title VII deprives a district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 380 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir.2004). The Supreme Court granted certiorari and on February *574 22, 2006, reversed and remanded, holding that the threshold number of employees for application of Title VII is an element of a plaintiffs claim for relief, not a jurisdictional issue. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1245, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006). Thus, the Supreme Court has overruled the basis for the district court’s dismissal and our affirmance. Accordingly, we REVERSE the decision of the district court and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ‘ UNITED STATES

Before GARZA, DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On August 2, 2004, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Arbaugh’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under our binding precedent, which held that a failure to qualify as an “employer” with fifteen employees under Title VII deprives a district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 380 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir.2004). The Supreme Court granted certiorari and on February *574 22, 2006, reversed and remanded, holding that the threshold number of employees for application of Title VII is an element of a plaintiffs claim for relief, not a jurisdictional issue. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1245, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006). Thus, the Supreme Court has overruled the basis for the district court’s dismissal and our affirmance. Accordingly, we REVERSE the decision of the district court and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 F.3d 573, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9279, 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arbaugh-v-y-h-corporation-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack