Boulware v. South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
3:17-cv-01110
| D.S.C. | Oct 4, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Adriane E.T. Boulware sued her employer, the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, asserting FMLA claims (self-care and family-care) and state-law claims for breach of contract and breach with fraudulent intent.
- Defendant moved to dismiss all claims; the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal, and Plaintiff filed objections. The District Court reviewed the Report and objections.
- Plaintiff argued (1) the Eleventh Amendment does not bar her FMLA self-care claim (invoking Hibbs and alleging her self- and family-care claims are intertwined), (2) she adequately alleged prejudice from FMLA family-care interference, and (3) the State waived sovereign immunity for her state-law contract claims and, alternatively, those claims should be remanded to state court.
- The Magistrate Judge found Coleman controls FMLA self-care claims (barring suits against States), found Plaintiff failed to plead prejudice or a remediable FMLA family-care violation, and recommended dismissal of state-law claims given lack of original jurisdiction.
- The District Court overruled Plaintiff’s objections, adopted the Report, granted Defendant’s motion: FMLA claims dismissed with prejudice; state-law claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eleventh Amendment bars FMLA self-care claim | Boulware: Coleman should not control; her self- and family-care claims are intertwined (Hibbs applies) | State: Coleman controls; Eleventh Amendment bars self-care suits against States | Court: Coleman controls; Eleventh Amendment bars the self-care claim (dismissed) |
| Whether FMLA family-care claim states a claim (prejudice/remedy) | Boulware: Defendant’s scheduling, comments, and probation extension interfered and caused prejudice/monetary/legal damages | State: Plaintiff alleged no lost wages/benefits or other recoverable monetary loss; alleged actions are not FMLA-remediable | Court: Plaintiff failed to allege prejudice or a remediable loss; family-care claim dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Whether state-law breach claims proceed despite dismissal of federal claims (sovereign immunity/waiver) | Boulware: State waived sovereign immunity by contract; alternatively, novel FMLA ruling warrants jurisdiction or remand | State: No waiver; Eleventh Amendment/supplemental jurisdiction rules control | Court: No waiver shown; with federal claims dismissed, court declines supplemental jurisdiction; state claims dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether case should be remanded to state court | Boulware: If federal court cannot hear state claims, remand is appropriate | State: Case originated in federal court; remand impossible | Court: Remand improper because case was filed in federal court; dismissal without prejudice for state claims instead |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30 (2012) (Eleventh Amendment bars FMLA self-care suits against States)
- Nev. Dep’t of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003) (Eleventh Amendment does not bar FMLA family-care suits under Congress’s enforcement power)
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002) (to state an FMLA interference claim, plaintiff must show interference and prejudice/remedial loss)
- Montgomery v. Maryland, [citation="72 Fed. App'x 17"] (4th Cir. 2003) (equitable FMLA remedies unavailable without a legal loss)