A former waitress and bartender at the Moonlight Cafe in New Orleans will be carrying the legal hopes of perhaps millions of workers, many of them employed by small companies, when her case moves forward in the US Supreme Court. The Court´s agreement in mid-May to hear the appeal of Jenifer Arbaugh sets the stage for a potentially sweeping decision on the authority of the federal courts to decide a myriad of workers´ complaints about discrimination on the job, as well as claims for benefits, under federal employee-protection laws.
Although the core issue is a technical one dealing with court jurisdiction, that does not obscure the fact that the outcome could have a wide impact on cases under such laws as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and even some aspects of the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act - an array of laws that together provide legal safeguards or assure job benefits for most of the nation´s workforce. The new case, Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation, will be heard and decided in the Court´s term starting Oct. 3.
Workers´ Access to Federal Court May Be Severely Limited.
The case could have a particularly strong effect on small employers and workers on their payrolls, because many of the specific disputes turn on whether an employer is too small to be covered by a federal law. For example, Title VII and ADA exempt businesses with fewer than 15 employees, ADEA does not apply to those with fewer than 20 employees, and FMLA does not cover employers with fewer than 50 workers. But the issue at stake also covers other provisions in federal laws, which could affect larger employers and their workers, too. Those provisions address who is an employee under a statute; whether a company is in an industry that affects interstate commerce; or whether a business qualifies for a special exemption (such as that allowed to private clubs under Title VII).
Every one of the laws involved has definitions or restrictions that confine its scope. The question in Arbaugh´s case is not whether those limitations restrict what she or other workers could win by suing in federal court; she concedes that they do when a case is decided on the merits. Rather, the question her case poses is whether, given those restrictions, workers may sue at all - in other words, whether the provisions limiting a law do away with federal jurisdication of the worker´s claim altogether.
This is important, because a question of jurisdiction cannot be settled by a side agreement between the parties, and it cannot be waived. It must be raised and settled before a case is final, and it can be raised at any time - even after a case has essentially been completed. Thus, Arbaugh´s appeal notes, determining jurisdiction can often decide a case.
Winning the Battle Versus Losing the War - at the Eleventh Hour.
All of this is at stake because Arbaugh went to court to complain of a continuous pattern of sexual harassment by the owners of the Moonlight Cafe (the Y & H Corporation) during the nine months she worked there serving food and drink to customers. Her Title VII claim went to a jury, which ruled in her favor, and awarded her $40,000 in total damages. But, after the verdict was in, and the case all but over, lawyers for Y & H urged the federal judge to throw out the case, arguing that the Cafe had fewer than 15 employees and thus was exempt altogether from Title VII.
Five months after the verdict, the judge agreed, and so did the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals. With Y & H having fewer than 15 workers on its payroll, the lower courts decided, the federal court simply had no jurisdiction. That nullified the verdict, barred Arbaugh from pursuing her federal claim any further and stopped her lawyers from proceeding in federal court with her separate claims based upon state law in Louisiana.
Federal courts of appeals for years have been reaching conflicting decisions on this issue. The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals decision finding the 15-worker minimum to define federal court jurisdiction in Arbaugh´s case agrees with decisions of five other courts of appeals, but is at odds with decisions of five other courts of appeals.
The Supreme Court was willing to take on that dispute and settle it, partly because of the lingering split in the lower courts. But the Court also may have been influenced by the fact that Arbaugh´s case went forward with no question of the judge´s power to hear the case and no doubt of the jury´s authority to reach a verdict - until the other side objected only after it had lost.
About the Author
Lyle Denniston is a veteran Supreme Court reporter, having covered the highest court for 46 years. He thus has covered one out of every four Justices ever to sit on the Court. Denniston writes for Workforce Insights on www.veritude.com. Most recently with The Boston Globe, Denniston is now reporting on the Court for SCOTUSblog, a Web site devoted to news and information about the Court, and for the NPR Boston affiliate, WBUR.
About Veritude
Veritude provides strategic human resources - the talent, technology and tactics that growing firms need in order to anticipate and adapt to changes in the workplace. Veritude is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fidelity Investments Company. Headquartered in Boston, the company serves clients throughout the United States and Canada and is part of Fidelity´s ongoing investment and leadership in outsourced HR services. To review other articles, research and expert analysis relevant to HR professionals seeking to stay informed, please visit www.veritude.comFor more information, contact: inquiry[at]veritude.com; or call 1-800-597-5537.
The article originally appeared in Workforce Insights on www.veritude.com. ©2005 Veritude, LLC. Reprinted with permission.