Ark. Dep't of Veterans Affairs v. Mallett
549 S.W.3d 351
Ark.2018Background
- Appellees Diane Mallett and Joseph Fabits (former ADVA employees) sued Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs (ADVA) under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), alleging unpaid overtime and off-the-clock work.
- ADVA answered in March 2014 and initially conceded AMWA waived sovereign immunity; class certification was granted then later decertified on appeal (Mallett).
- After remand, ADVA moved (Sept. 2017) to dismiss asserting sovereign immunity under art. 5, § 20 of the Arkansas Constitution.
- The circuit court denied the motion; ADVA appealed directly to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
- The majority reverses and dismisses, holding Andrews controls: AMWA’s provision permitting suit against the State is repugnant to art. 5, § 20, so sovereign immunity bars the AMWA claim and the Claims Commission is the proper remedy.
- There are multiple dissents arguing Andrews was wrongly decided and criticizing the majority’s treatment of sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense and pleading rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AMWA validly waives state sovereign immunity so plaintiffs may sue ADVA for monetary relief | Mallett: AMWA allows suit against the State; employees may pursue overtime damages in court | ADVA: Article 5, § 20 forbids authorizing the State to be made a defendant for monetary relief; AMWA's waiver is unconstitutional | Court: Follows Andrews — AMWA's provision permitting suit against the State is repugnant to art. 5, § 20; dismissal required |
| Proper forum for monetary claims against the State under these facts | Mallett: Circuit court is proper forum for statutory AMWA claims | ADVA: Claims for monetary relief against the State must proceed through the Claims Commission | Court: Directs financial redress to the Claims Commission (per Andrews) |
| Whether Andrews controls and forecloses AMWA suits against the State | Mallett: Challenges reliance on Andrews; urges exceptions (e.g., ultra vires) | ADVA: Andrews is controlling precedent invalidating AMWA’s waiver provision | Court: Andrews controls; declines to revisit or broaden analysis here |
| Procedural/pleading issue: whether ADVA waived sovereign immunity by earlier answer | Mallett: ADVA previously answered and did not assert sovereign immunity; argument that defense waived | ADVA: Relies on Andrews' substantive bar despite prior pleadings | Court: Majority applies Andrews and dismisses; several dissenters argue Rule 8(c)/Flis counsel against allowing late assertion of sovereign immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews, 535 S.W.3d 616 (Ark. 2018) (held AMWA provision permitting suit against the State is repugnant to art. 5, § 20; monetary claims against State must proceed via Claims Commission)
- Walther v. FLIS Enterprises, Inc., 540 S.W.3d 264 (Ark. 2018) (treated sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense and addressed preservation/pleading issues)
- Williams v. McCoy, 535 S.W.3d 266 (Ark. 2018) (recognized that the State could be sued for illegal acts; discussed post-Andrews uncertainty regarding exceptions)
- Ark. Cmty. Corr. v. Barnes, 542 S.W.3d 841 (Ark. 2018) (applied sovereign-immunity principles to dismiss Whistle-Blower Act claims where immunity was asserted as an affirmative defense)