as Chief Deputy Sheriff, she was Chief Deputy Sheriff on paper only and that Sheriff Shook relied on her more as a friend with whom he would confide personal feelings, rather than professionally, based on their respective positions. We agree with the magistrate judge’s reasoning in rejecting this argument: “such an argument, if accepted, would eliminate the exclusion to any member of any elected official’s personal staff inasmuch as a loss of trust and intimacy would be the forerunner of most terminations.” (J.A. 220). Turning to the subject matter jurisdiction issue, we hold that application of Title VII’s personal staff exclusion does not present a lack of subject matter jurisdiction issue. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 516, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Rather, at the summary judgment stage, it
holding time limitation on statement of costs is not jurisdictional and late filing is within courts discretion holding that title viis numerosity requirement is nonjurisdictional even though it serves the important policy goal of sparing very small businesses from title vii liability because the statutory provision containing the requirement does not speak in jurisdictional terms or in any way refer to the jurisdiction of district courts holding that title viis provision limiting its application to businesses with fifteen or more employees was not jurisdictional on the basis that when congress does not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character holding that section 1144 is a jurisdictional limitation holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional