Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly

PETITIONER: Yellow Freight System, Inc.
RESPONDENT: Donnelly
LOCATION: Naval Base San Diego

DOCKET NO.: 89-431
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

CITATION: 494 US 820 (1990)
ARGUED: Feb 28, 1990
DECIDED: Apr 17, 1990

ADVOCATES:
John J. Henely - on behalf of the Respondent
Jeffrey Ivan Pasek - on behalf of the Petitioner

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - February 28, 1990 in Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - April 17, 1990 in Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly

William H. Rehnquist:

The opinion of the Court in No. 89-431, Yellow Freight System, Inc. verus Donnelly will be announced by Justice Stevens.

John Paul Stevens:

This case comes to us on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Respondent filed a complaint in a State Court, the Circuit Court of Cook County, alleging that the petitioner had discriminated against her because she is a woman in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act and also Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The petitioner removed the case to Federal Court and moved to dismiss arguing in part that the complainant in State Court could not toll a statute of limitations for a Title VII claim because the State Courts have no jurisdiction over Title VII claims.

In an opinion filed with the Clerk of Court today, we hold that the State Courts have concurrent jurisdiction with Federal Courts over Title VII claims.

The text of the Act does not provide for exclusive federal jurisdiction further although the legislative history and procedural provisions of the Act suggest strongly that Congress may have assumed that all Title VII claims would be brought in a Federal Court.

These factors do not overcome the strong presumption of concurrent jurisdiction over Federal Actions by State Courts.

Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.

The opinion is unanimous.