The U. S. District Courts are typically referred to as "trial courts."  Since employment law cases center mostly on resolution of civil disputes [meaning non-criminal cases], the above courts' relationship to the criminal justice system will not be discussed.

In federal court, parties initially go to battle in the District Court.  Most federal legal battles are fought in a U. S. District Court. Note: some state trial courts may also be called "district courts" [e.g., in the state of Oregon].    Don't get these state courts confused with the federal system. 

Federal courts are mostly located in individual states within distinctly named "districts."  In each state, U. S. District Courts are typically identified by geographic location.  For example, here in California there is the "Northern District Of California" [located in San Francisco]; there is the Eastern District of California [located in Sacramento]; and there is the "Central District Of California" [located in Los Angeles]. 

Highly populated or geographically large judicial districts may have several district courthouses, each located in a different city and designated as "divisions."  The different courthouses or divisions within a district are typically identified by the city within which the court is located.  A U. S.  District Court name may look like this:  "United States District Court - Northern District Of California - San Francisco Division."  

How do you find yourself in federal court?  Well, besides bad luck you end up in federal court for many reasons, far too numerous to mention here.  The most common reasons:  1)  the dispute involves federal law or a "federal question" [most "federal law disputes" must be pursued in federal court]; and/or 2) a citizen of one state [that's you] is suing or defending against a citizen of another state [the federal court gains jurisdiction because there exists "diversity of citizenship," that is, people or entities from different states are opposing each other in a lawsuit].  

Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction arose out of Colonial period concern that a litigant from one state might gain advantage over an opponent by suing in his or her home state court which might favor its citizens over those of foreign states. The idea was that federal courts were necessary to provide a neutral forum for citizens of different or "diverse" states to resolve disputes.

Just one more technical point so to make sure you are absolutely bored to death:  generally, when a case is filed in a U. S. District Court based solely on diversity grounds, the amount in controversy [the $ people are fighting over] must total at least $75,000.  How does the court determine if a dispute is valued at $75,000 or more?  Well, I'm sure you are tired of reading, so I won't bother going on and on with this kind of technical babble.  Suffice it to say, there are rules regarding all this. 

Bonus Tip: You should seek the advice of competent counsel to determine whether a case should be filed in a federal court [assuming you have the option to choose a state or federal court].  There are strategic advantages to filing in federal or state court depending on your circumstance.

Bonus Tip: Many lawyers shy away from handling federal court cases because federal judges do not tolerate lawyers who don't follow court rules.  Federal judges also demand quality work from lawyers appearing before them.  Judges do not hesitate to shame sloppy lawyers [in the courtroom, with colleagues snickering away].  If a lawyer is so lazy or incompetent that he or she can only produce poorly written papers chocked full of illogical and unpersuasive arguments, these lawyers know to avoid the fed system [they tend to be smart enough to know not to stick their hands in places where they can get burned].

If either party to a dispute is unhappy with a District Court's ruling or the outcome at trial, the unhappy litigant may be able to challenge the result by filing an appeal to a Circuit Court Of Appeal.   The United States has numerous appeal court circuits [multiple states are divided into geographic regions called "circuits"].  Parties usually appeal cases in the circuit within which the U. S. District Court trial took place [typically, where the appealing party initially brought the case]. 

You can best understand a Circuit Court of Appeal's function by realizing one thing: they "supervise" District Courts within their Circuit. How does one end up in the Circuit Court of Appeals?  Basically, parties have to first fight it out in a District Court and someone has to want to appeal the result.  When a party [usually the loser in a lawsuit] feels that the trial judge, jury, luck, fate, God, or Satan rendered a legally flawed result, they may be able to ask the Circuit Court of Appeal to correct the perceived error. I say "may" appeal because appealing a bad result is contingent on having sound legal reasons to appeal and because appealing a case is optional.

Keep in mind that even a winning party may appeal a result because, for example, they may be unhappy with some aspect of the trial result, e.g., maybe they won some money, but not, in their opinion, not enough money.  For example, often times winning plaintiffs appeal the trial court's reduction of an award or a judge's refusal to let the jury consider certain issues or award certain types of damages].

Generally, there is NOT an automatic right to appeal  in civil cases, a party has to opt [or formally request] to file an appeal in a civil case [don't confuse this with death penalty cases where the news media always mention a condemned defendant's automatic right to appeal a death sentence].  Filing a written notice of appeal is usually required in cases [typically a one to two page paper].  If a party fails to timely file such notice, the right to appeal may be lost. 

Sometimes there no issues to appeal; however, you have probably read or heard about someone losing big in a case at trial.  Post-result, you typically hear the losing party or lawyer say "we will appeal," or "obviously we think the jury was wrong and we plan to file an immediate appeal."  Sometimes this is simply face-saving, sour grapes, or in-your-dreams talk.

Often economics govern whether appeals are pursued.  A party may realize that the odds of winning on appeal are slim, but knowing the appeal process can take one to three years, they file so to delay money payments to the winning party.  Often times, the losing party will offer the winner substantially less than what was awarded with the "threat" that if the reduced offer is not accepted, an appeal will be taken effectively delaying payment of the award to the winner for a long, long time.  

Appeals are expensive procedures. Often times, even though a party might win on appeal, they cannot afford to pay an appellate lawyer to handle the appeal.  Sometimes, the amount won or lost is not large enough to justify the cost of appealing the trial court result.  In these cases, appeals are typically not pursued.

Before appealing, a party typically must post a bond with the appeals court [insurance policy] in the amount of the judgment being appealed. If the appealing party loses on appeal, they may have to pay interest during the time the case was on appeal [on the judgment amount].   Additionally, the cost for a lawyer to handle an appeal is quite expensive [$50,000 to $250,000 to appeal uncomplicated matters; where a lot is at stake, appeal costs can run into seven figures].  Someone has to be really mad and have lots of money to file an appeal.

To handle an appeal, parties typically retain lawyers who specialize in appeals.  Expertise with appeals is necessary because the appeals process is choked full of rules and technical details that must be followed to the letter.  Moreover, appeals usually demand that the lawyers apply a high degree of logic and intellect.  Appeals can be lost in a heartbeat if a lawyer is incapable of sparring, so to speak, with a panel of appellate justices.

Once an appeal is filed, a Circuit Court of Appeal looks at the problem [or "legal issues"] presented by the appealing party and the respondents counter to the points raised by the appellant.  If the appeals court agrees that legal errors were made at the trial level, it may rule such legal errors substantial enough to warrant "reversal" of the trial court result [whether it was a verdict, ruling, judgment, etc.].  If the Circuit Court of Appeal reverses, it usually "orders" the trial or District Court to correct the problem [in ways too numerous to discuss here]. You may have heard some terms bounced around in the media such as: the  judge reversed, a new trial was ordered, writ issued, or appeals court refuses to hear appeal.   Suffice it to say, appellate justices have a full range of judicial remedies to impose on a case, from saying "so what" to granting a "win" in the appellant's favor.

Let us confuse you a little more with this: the various Circuit Courts of Appeal in the U. S. do NOT have to follow each other's decisions.  Each Circuit Court of Appeal can issue decisions that contradict what other Circuits have ruled on the same issue. 


For example, the federal appeals court in San Francisco [9th Circuit Court of Appeals] may say "We think the statute means the following .  . . "  However, an appeals court in Richmond, Virginia [1st Circuit] can say:  "We are fully aware what the 9th Circuit has said, but we think they are wrong and we believe that the statute really says .  .   ."   In this scenario, the federal circuit appellate courts are said to be "in conflict."  Trial courts and judges must follow the rulings of the appeal court located in their respective Circuits.  When there are significant conflicting opinions or rules of law in the various Circuits, the U. S. Supreme Court may, but is not required to, step in to "resolve" the conflicting opinions. 

The U. S. Supreme Court is the highest court of the land.  Generally, the U. S. Supreme Court looks at what the Circuit Courts of Appeal have done [and technically the trial courts] and decide if they need to correct or clarify a lower court's decision. The U. S. Supreme Court strictly deals with issues it considers important.  They resolve conflicts in decisions of the Circuit Court of Appeals, matters of important public policy, or other significant conflicts.  Additionally, they may deal with state law, state court matters, or issues that may involve application of federal law or the U. S. Constitution.  The U. S. Supreme Court can get involved in a case regardless that matters may appear to involve only state law issues.

Bonus Tip:  U. S. Supreme Court decisions have a trickle down effect on all lower federal courts [and possibly state courts].  U.  S. Supreme Court "law" applies to all of us, as U. S. citizens [did you know you are both a state citizen and U. S. citizen?].   Once the U. S. Supreme Court issues a decision, all lower federal Circuit Appeal, District courts, and possibly state courts must follow its rulings.

Bonus Tip:  The U. S. Supreme Court has the absolute right to decide whether or not it will review a civil case.  You have a better chance winning the lottery than having your case reviewed by the U. S. Supreme Court.  Enough said on this point.

Link

MAIN INDEX