899 N.W.2d 515
Minn. Ct. App.2017Background
- Martin Breaker was a BSU faculty member who left for military service (2005) and sought reemployment in 2008; BSU offered a lesser temporary position which he declined.
- In 2011 Breaker sued in state court for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Breaker I); his complaint referenced USERRA facts but did not seek relief under USERRA; the claim was dismissed for failure to plead outrageous conduct and that dismissal was affirmed in 2012.
- In April 2012 Minnesota enacted a statute waiving state sovereign immunity for USERRA claims (codified at Minn. Stat. § 1.05, subd. 5), after Breaker I was dismissed.
- Breaker filed a new state-court suit in 2016 asserting two USERRA claims: failure to reemploy to a position of like status/pay/seniority (38 U.S.C. §§ 4312–13) and discrimination based on military status (38 U.S.C. § 4311).
- BSU moved to dismiss under res judicata, arguing Breaker could have and should have litigated USERRA claims in Breaker I; the district court agreed and dismissed. Breaker appealed.
- The court considered whether Breaker had a "full and fair opportunity" to litigate USERRA claims in Breaker I, focusing on whether sovereign immunity barred such claims at the time of Breaker I's dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Breaker’s USERRA claims because he could have raised them in Breaker I | Breaker: he lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate USERRA claims in Breaker I because state sovereign immunity barred such claims at that time | BSU: nothing prevented Breaker from raising USERRA claims in Breaker I; USERRA’s text evidences congressional intent to permit suits and abrogate immunity | The court held res judicata does not bar Breaker’s USERRA claims because sovereign immunity would have barred those claims in Breaker I, so Breaker lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate them |
| Whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity under USERRA (so private suits against states were available pre-2012) | Breaker: Congress did not validly abrogate sovereign immunity under its Article I War Powers authority | BSU: USERRA’s provision allowing suits "in a State court in accordance with the laws of the State" shows intent to abrogate; Katz might permit abrogation under Article I in some contexts | The court held Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity under Article I for USERRA claims; Alden precludes Article I abrogation and Katz is a narrow bankruptcy exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (federal Article I powers do not permit Congress to subject nonconsenting states to private suits in state courts)
- Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (Article I legislation cannot abrogate state immunity absent Fourteenth Amendment authority)
- Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (narrow exception allowing Congress to abrogate immunity under the Bankruptcy Clause)
- Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. Raygor, 620 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. Supreme Court interpreting Alden and sovereign immunity principles)
- St. Charles Cty. v. Wisconsin, 447 F.3d 1055 (8th Cir. analysis noting Katz is a narrow exception)
- Mach v. Wells Concrete Prods. Co., 866 N.W.2d 921 (Minn. 2015) (standard of appellate review for res judicata)
- Rucker v. Schmidt, 794 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. 2011) (elements of res judicata explained)