• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Human Resources Compliance Library >Daily Document Update: HR Compliance Library, ?46,124, Supreme Court rules Title Ⅶ’s charge-filing requirement is not jurisdictional - US SUPREME COURT DOCKET, (Jun. 5, 2019)
【24h】

Daily Document Update: HR Compliance Library, ?46,124, Supreme Court rules Title Ⅶ’s charge-filing requirement is not jurisdictional - US SUPREME COURT DOCKET, (Jun. 5, 2019)

机译：日常文档更新:人力资源合规库,? 46124年,最高法院规定Ⅶ的头衔不是司法——charge-filing需求美国最高法院诉讼事件表,(2019年6月5日)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Title Ⅶ’s charge-filing requirement, which is stated in provisions of Title Ⅶ discrete from the statutory provisions empowering federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over Title Ⅶ actions, is a non- jurisdictional claim-processing rule that requires parties to take certain procedural steps during or before litigation, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a decision authored by Justice Ginsberg. While such a rule may be mandatory insofar as a court must enforce it if timely raised, it is not a "jurisdictional" requirement generally reserved for prescriptions delineating the classes of cases a court may entertain (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the persons over whom the court may exercise adjudicatory authority (personal jurisdiction). Because "a rule may be mandatory without being jurisdictional, and Title Ⅶ’s charge-filing requirement fits that bill," the Fifth Circuit’s reversal of summary judgment against the employee was affirmed (Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, June 3, 2019, Ginsburg, R.).
机译：标题Ⅶcharge-filing要求,这是在规定的标题Ⅶ离散法定条款授权联邦法院行使管辖权标题Ⅶ行动,是一个非司法索赔处理规则需要各方采取一定的程序步骤期间或在诉讼之前,美国一致由最高法院的决定司法金斯堡。强制只要法院必须执行及时提出,它不是一个“管辖权”需求通常用于处方描述情况下法院可能的类(保险标的管辖权)和娱乐人谁法院可以行使adjudicatory权威(个人管辖)。因为“规则可能是强制性的没有管辖权和标题Ⅶcharge-filing要求符合这一法案,”第五巡回法庭的即决判决对员工的逆转确认(德州诉戴维斯本德堡县,2019年6月3日,金斯伯格,r)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号