Arbogast v. Kansas Department of Labor
789 F.3d 1174
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Arbogast, a KDOL employee in the Workers Compensation Division, alleged disability discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act after her termination; she sued the “State of Kansas, Department of Labor” and an individual supervisor and sought monetary damages.
- KDOL moved to dismiss, arguing (1) it lacks state-law capacity to be sued and (2) it enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity because Kansas did not waive immunity for these claims.
- The district court allowed limited jurisdictional discovery and denied dismissal, concluding KDOL waived Eleventh Amendment immunity by accepting federal funds for its Unemployment Insurance Division and treating the capacity argument as a repackaged immunity defense.
- KDOL appealed interlocutorily; it conceded at oral argument that the collateral order doctrine likely does not permit immediate review of the capacity issue.
- The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal as to capacity for lack of appellate jurisdiction, but under the collateral order doctrine reviewed and affirmed the district court’s holding that KDOL waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for Arbogast’s Rehabilitation Act claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KDOL has capacity under Kansas law to be sued in federal court | Arbogast treated KDOL as a proper state defendant for Rehabilitation Act claims | KDOL contended state law does not grant a state agency capacity to be sued absent express authorization | Appeal on capacity dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction; district court did not conclusively decide the statutory capacity question |
| Whether KDOL waived Eleventh Amendment immunity by accepting federal funds for its Unemployment Insurance Division | Acceptance of federal funds by KDOL subjected the department to Rehabilitation Act jurisdiction for all operations, including Workers Compensation | KDOL argued waiver should not extend to a division that did not receive federal funds and that waiver must be knowing and voluntary with contractual evidence | Court held §2000d-7 and Rehabilitation Act language effectuate an unequivocal waiver for the entire department; KDOL waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for Arbogast’s claims |
| Whether the Workers Compensation Division is an independent “program or activity” not covered by waiver | Arbogast argued divisions are part of KDOL and waiver extends to all operations of the department | KDOL argued Workers Compensation is separately funded, administratively independent, and therefore outside waiver scope | Court found strong statutory and administrative ties; division is part of KDOL operations and waiver applies department-wide |
| Whether extending waiver to a non‑federally funded division violates the Spending Clause | Arbogast relied on the Rehabilitation Act’s statutory scope and §2000d-7 waiver as within Congress’s Spending Clause power | KDOL argued the connection is too attenuated under Dole and NFIB to condition funds on waiver for unrelated divisions | Court applied Dole factors and concluded the condition is for the general welfare, unambiguous, related to the federal interest, and thus constitutional; waiver stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (establishes collateral order doctrine prerequisites)
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (states may appeal denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity under collateral order doctrine)
- Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35 (limits pendent appellate jurisdiction in collateral order context)
- Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (Rehabilitation Act initially held not to manifest clear waiver of state immunity)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (§2000d-7 supplies unequivocal waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (state may waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by invoking federal jurisdiction)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (discusses Eleventh Amendment immunity and limits on congressional abrogation)
- Robinson v. Kansas, 295 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir.) (acceptance of Rehabilitation Act funds effects waiver of immunity)
- Brockman v. Wyo. Dep’t of Family Servs., 342 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir.) (statutory waiver via acceptance of funds is clear)
- Dole v. United States, 483 U.S. 203 (limits on Spending Clause conditions and the Dole factors)
- Koslow v. Pennsylvania, 302 F.3d 161 (3d Cir.) (statutory waiver construed structurally to cover all operations of the funded department)
- Haybarger v. Lawrence Cnty. Adult Probation & Parole, 551 F.3d 193 (3d Cir.) (waiver may apply to entire department even if particular subunit received no federal funds)