October Term 2003 · Docket 02-1205

Does a four-year federal limit apply to state employment discrimination claims?

The parties dispute whether a federal statute sets the deadline for state law employment claims.

Official caption
Jones v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Gorman argued Congress created a bright line rule.

    Mr. Phillips argued the term is not a term of art.

    Mr. Garre argued the claims face a uniform limit.

    Mr. Newsom argued states need a clear rule.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the scope of a federal statute of limitations.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 24, 2004.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want a four-year deadline for their claims.

the opposing sides want a shorter deadline for their claims.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the federal statute creates a clear rule.

the opposing sides argue the phrase lacks a single uniform meaning.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

The Chief Justice asked if the case was submitted.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the deadline for federal civil actions.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON