Norma J. Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Title VII’s fifteen-employee requirement is an element of plaintiff's claim that is “in all relevant respects indistinguishable from” the ADA’s fifteen-employee requirement
• holding that courts have an independent obligation to determine if they have subject-matter jurisdiction and can raise related concerns sua sponte
• determining that “the ADA’s fifteen-employee requirement is in all relevant respects indistinguishable from Title VII’s”
• noting that “a significant purpose of the fifteen-employee minimum in the Title VII context is to spare small companies the considerable expense of complying with the statute’s many-nuanced requirements” (citations omitted)
• explaining that the court may sua sponte raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction
• noting that the court may raise subject matter jurisdiction concerns sua sponte

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).