In Arbaugh v. Y. & H. Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006), Ms. Arbaugh, a waitress/bartender, sued her former employer, Y & H, for sexual harassment under Title VII. Id. at 503-04. Y & H moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that it had fewer than 15 employees, which was a prerequisite to Title VII's application. Id. at 504. Y & H argued that since the court had no jurisdiction, Y & H was not amenable to suit under Title VII. Id. The trial court agreed that the 15-or-more employee requirement was jurisdictional. Id. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Id. at 509. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that while the employee requirement related to the substantive adequacy of Arbaugh's claim, it did not divest the federal court of subject matter of jurisdiction. Id. at 504. Rather, it was a defect in the plaintiff's claim that, if not timely asserted before the conclusion of the trial on the merits, was deemed waived. Id. The Supreme Court went on to bemoan that it is often the case that judicial opinions "obscure the issue by stating that the court is dismissing 'for lack of jurisdiction' when some threshold fact has not been established, without explicitly considering whether the dismissal should be for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim." Id. at 511 . The Supreme Court specifically addressed the issue of statutory compliance and subject matter jurisdiction. Ms. Arbaugh, a waitress/bartender, sued her former employer, Y & H, for sexual harassment under Title VII. Id. at 503-04. After a jury verdict and judgment in Arbaugh's favor, Y & H moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming for the first time that it had fewer than 15 employees, which is a prerequisite to Title VII's application. Id. at 504. Y & H argued that since the court had no jurisdiction, Y & H was therefore not amenable to suit under Title VII. Id. The trial court agreed that the 15-or-more employee requirement was jurisdictional and vacated its prior judgment. Id. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Id. at 509. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that while the employee numerosity requirement relates to the substantive adequacy of Arbaugh's claim, it did not circumscribe the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 504. Rather, it was a defect in the plaintiff's claim that, if not timely asserted before the conclusion of trial on the merits, was deemed waived. Id. Moreover, nothing in Title VII indicated that Congress intended courts, sua sponte, to assure that the employee-numerosity requirement was met. Id. at 515. The Court held that if the Legislature clearly stated that a threshold limitation on a statute's scope was jurisdictional, then, courts and litigants would be duly instructed and would not be left to wrestle with the issue. Id. at 515-16. The Court did not dispute that if a requirement in a statute was jurisdictional, failure to comply with that requirement divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 515. However, that was not the case with the Title VII employee numerosity requirement. The Court said that "when Congress does not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character." Id. at 516. The Court reasoned that if Congress meant to make the employee-numerosity requirement "jurisdictional" as it has made the amount-in-controversy threshold an element of subject matter jurisdiction for federal courts, it would have specified so in the statute itself. Id. at 514-15. Therefore, if the statute was meant to have jurisdictional restrictions, it would have been written in such a way so as to indicate that intent. As such, the mechanics' lien statute clearly was not. The Supreme Court in Arbaugh further stated that judicial opinions "often obscure the issue by stating that the court is dismissing 'for lack of jurisdiction' when some threshold fact has not been established, without explicitly considering whether the dismissal should be for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim." Id. at 511.