Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Arbaugh: Title VII’s Employee Threshold Is Not Jurisdictional

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 13, 2026

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. draws a practical line between a true jurisdictional limit and an element of a federal employment claim.

The defense arose after a jury verdict

A jury found for Arbaugh on her Title VII sexual-harassment claim. Only after judgment did the employer argue that it had fewer than fifteen employees and that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction.

Congress must speak clearly

The Court adopted a readily administrable rule: a statutory limitation is jurisdictional only when Congress clearly states that it governs the court’s adjudicatory authority. Otherwise, a threshold written into the substantive statute is treated as an element of the claim.

The fifteen-employee minimum is an element

Title VII’s definition of employer contains the employee threshold, while separate provisions grant federal jurisdiction. The minimum therefore concerns whether the defendant is covered, not whether the federal court has power to hear the controversy.

Late jurisdictional attack was rejected

Because the threshold was nonjurisdictional, the employer could not raise it as a subject-matter-jurisdiction defect after trial. The Court reversed the dismissal while leaving ordinary pleading, proof, waiver, and preclusion rules to govern coverage disputes.

Key takeaways

• Distinguish statutory coverage elements from jurisdictional limits.
• Raise employee-count disputes through ordinary merits procedure.
• Preserve evidence about which workers count toward the threshold.
• Do not assume every statutory prerequisite can be raised after judgment.