Arbogast v. State of Kansas, Dept. Labor
686 F. App'x 556
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Arbogast sued after being terminated from the Kansas Department of Labor’s Workers Compensation Division, alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act.
- The complaint caption named the defendant as "State of Kansas, Department of Labor," but the substance of the pleading described the Kansas Department of Labor (KDOL) as the sole government defendant.
- KDOL moved to dismiss initially on capacity and Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds; the district court denied the motion, finding KDOL waived Eleventh Amendment immunity by accepting federal funds. This court affirmed on the immunity issue in a prior appeal.
- On remand, KDOL renewed its capacity-to-be-sued argument after the pleadings amendment deadline had passed; the district court then granted dismissal for lack of capacity under Kansas law.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding the complaint named KDOL (a subordinate agency) rather than the State, and under Kansas law subordinate agencies lack capacity to be sued absent statutory authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint named the State of Kansas (which could be sued) or KDOL (which lacks capacity absent statute) | Arbogast contends the caption "State of Kansas, Department of Labor" means the State was named as defendant | KDOL contends the complaint in substance names KDOL, a subordinate agency lacking capacity to be sued under Kansas law | Complaint named KDOL, not the State; KDOL lacks capacity absent statutory authority, so dismissal affirmed |
| Whether KDOL waived Eleventh Amendment immunity by accepting federal funds (previous appeal) | Arbogast argued waiver via acceptance of federal funds subjects KDOL to suit under the Rehabilitation Act | KDOL argued Eleventh Amendment immunity barred suit | Prior panel held KDOL waived immunity; this decision did not revisit that holding |
| Whether an agency may be sued "by and through" an agency absent separate service on the State | Arbogast suggested her caption and pleading sufficed to sue the State via KDOL | KDOL argued no separate process served on the State and complaint did not sue "by and through" the agency | Court found no "by and through" pleading and no separate service on State; that supports treating KDOL as sole defendant |
| Standard and burden for personal-jurisdiction/capacity dismissal at preliminary stage | Arbogast relied on prima facie showing standard at preliminary stages | KDOL sought dismissal based on state-law capacity regardless of preliminary standard | Court applied prima facie standard for jurisdictional matters but decided capacity under Kansas law controlled and dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopkins v. State, 702 P.2d 311 (Kan. 1985) (subordinate government agencies lack capacity to sue or be sued absent statute)
- Mid Am. Credit Union v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 806 P.2d 479 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991) (an agency may be sued in conjunction with the State; suing the State requires appropriate process)
- AST Sports Sci., Inc. v. CLF Distribution Ltd., 514 F.3d 1054 (10th Cir. 2008) (prima facie showing standard for personal jurisdiction when no evidentiary hearing held)
- Arbogast v. Kan. Dep’t of Labor, 789 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2015) (prior panel decision addressing Eleventh Amendment immunity waiver by KDOL)