RAYGOR v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
00-1514
Petitioner 
Raygor
Respondent 
Regents of the University of Minnesota
Advocates
(Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court, supporting the respondent)
(Argued the cause for the petitioners)
(Argued the cause for the respondent)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

In 1996, Lance Raygor and James Goodchild filed complaints in Federal District Court against the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota, stemming from an alleged incident in which the university attempted to compel them to accept early retirement. They refused. Subsequently, their jobs were reclassified to reduce their salaries. The complaints alleged a federal cause of action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and a state law discrimination action under the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, which purports to toll the limitations period for supplemental claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed. The District Court ultimately dismissed their cases on Eleventh Amendment grounds. Before the dismissal, Raygor and Goodrich refilled their state law claims in state court. The university contended that the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute did not toll the limitations period on those claims because the Federal District Court never had subject matter jurisdiction over the ADEA claims. Ultimately, the State Supreme Court held the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute unconstitutional when applied to claims against nonconsenting state defendants, such as the university.

Question 

Does the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute's tolling provision apply to claims filed in federal court against nonconsenting States?

Conclusion 
Decision: 6 votes for Regents of the University of Minnesota, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1367

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota never consented to suit in federal court on Raygor and Goodrich's state law claims and that the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute does not toll the period of limitations for state law claims asserted against nonconsenting state defendants that are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds. Therefore, Justice O'Connor reasoned that the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute did not operate to toll the period of limitations for Raygor and Goodrich's claims. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Joined by Justices David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer, Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

Cite this Page
RAYGOR v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 12 December 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1514>.
RAYGOR v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1514 (last visited December 12, 2014).
"RAYGOR v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed December 12, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1514.