Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That makes no sense. How does a state court have authority in a matter of FEDERAL jurisdiction? It doesn't. NC knows that such a case filed in state court using federal law is subject to removal, which means that a defendant employer's request to move the case to federal court because it involves a federal statute is honored. NC is streamlining the process so both the filer's and the state's resources aren't wasted.
It's not federal jurisdiction, the EEOC acts as a clearing house for civil rights complaints, complainants must receive approval from them prior to filing a lawsuit. That is the way it works.
They have the option of filing in state or federal in all states except MS and NC, most would rather go the through the state court for the advantages previously mentioned. If they file in state court they are not subject to removal to a federal court except in remote instances.
Aside from the law wouldn't most states prefer to be involved since these are state businesses.
Quote:
Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts In almost all situations, if you have a lawsuit to file, you will likely be filing your case in a state court close to you. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over only two types of cases. - See more at: Federal or State Court: Subject Matter Jurisdiction - FindLaw
It is not the place of a federal court to have to hear cases regarding state law violations.
Incorrect. I already cited Federal Statute that allows for the removal of any civil action which could have been brought originally in a federal district court from state court to federal court.
It's not federal jurisdiction, the EEOC acts as a clearing house for civil rights complaints, complainants must receive approval from them prior to filing a lawsuit. That is the way it works.
They have the option of filing in state or federal in all states except MS and NC, most would rather go the through the state court for the advantages previously mentioned. If they file in state court they are not subject to removal to a federal court except in remote instances.
Just please stop. Several of you have already been proven WRONG:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
It doesn't have to be only a Federal issue to be removed to Federal court.
Federal statute provides for the removal from state to federal court by a defendant of any civil action which could have been brought originally in a federal district court, with no diversity of citizenship required in “federal question” cases.
Incorrect. I already cited Federal Statute that allows for the removal of any civil action which could have been brought originally in a federal district court from state court to federal court.
You're flat out wrong on this. Just stop.
Yes it ALLOWS it doesn't REQUIRE cases to go to federal courts, unlike the NC law that REQUIRES all discrimination cases to go to federal courts.
Do you understand the difference between ALLOWS and REQUIRES?
Yes it ALLOWS it doesn't REQUIRE cases to go to federal courts, unlike the NC law that REQUIRES all discrimination cases to go to federal courts.
Do you understand the difference between ALLOWS and REQUIRES?
Why would a defendant ever not want a discrimination case removed to federal court? What's the advantage to the defendant of keeping the case in state court? (And keep in mind that removal or not is the defendant's choice, according to federal statute.)
Can you guarantee that no adult trans with the opposite genitalia of the gender posted on the door will ever be present in park district locker room and/or shower facilities? public beach facilities? state park facilities? etc.? when MINORS are present?
Your complete disregard of MINORS' rights to NOT be unwillingly subjected to FELONY indecent exposure sexual abuse is reprehensible.
Um, can you guarantee no heterosexual straight man won't expose himself to little girls in locker rooms? Seriously, dude, save your crocodile tears, no one is buying it.
Just please stop. Several of you have already been proven WRONG:
You didn't read the specific reasons under which a defendant may remove from the state courts, read b) to f) - , Diversity of Citizenship, Foreign States, Federal Constitutional laws. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1441
They MAY remove IF they meet specific criteria.
Anyway that is for the normal other 48 states, NC no longer has the option.
Um, can you guarantee no heterosexual straight man won't expose himself to little girls in locker rooms?
Are heterosexual straight men legally allowed to enter and use such premises like trans adults with the opposite genitalia would have the right to do were it not for laws like NC's? That would be a big giant NO!
You didn't read the specific reasons under which a defendant may remove from the state courts, read b) to f) - , Diversity of Citizenship, Foreign States, Federal Constitutional laws. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1441
They MAY remove IF they meet specific criteria.
Yes, and ONE OF THE criteria is if the civil action could have been brought originally in a federal district court.
I've already provided citations from Cornell's School of Law, the same website you've linked.
Civil suits filed for cases of discrimination against any of those included in the Federal Government's list of protected classes meet that requirement. However, if there is an allegation that is not covered by federal law but is covered by state law, the federal court must separate that specific issue and remand it to state court.
Yes, and ONE OF THE criteria is if the civil action could have been brought originally in a federal district court.
I've already provided citations from Cornell's School of Law, the same website you've linked.
Civil suits filed for cases of discrimination against any of those included in the Federal Government's list of protected classes meet that requirement. However, if there is an allegation that is not covered by federal law but is covered by state law, the federal court must separate that specific issue and remand it to state court.
Again, do you understand the meaning of the words COULD, MAY, and REQUIRE?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
