Chee-Wah v. Henry Maurer, 663 F. App'x 194

Chee-Wah, a DEP employee, requested a classification review seeking promotion to a higher job classification; the New Jersey Civil Service Commission (CSC) audited and concluded she was not performing higher-level duties.
Chee-Wah filed an EEOC charge (EEOC found no violation) and an administrative appeal with the CSC (denied); she later sued CSC, several CSC employees, DEP, and several DEP supervisors in federal court seeking damages and injunctive relief (promotion).
After amendment, her Second Amended Complaint asserted Title VII race and gender discrimination and retaliation (Counts I–III), pendent state-law claims (Counts IV–VI), and a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and the New Jersey Constitution (Count VII).
Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings; the District Court dismissed damages claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and later dismissed remaining injunctive claims for lack of Title VII facts, Eleventh Amendment immunity for state-law claims, and for lack of a property interest in the reclassification claim.
The Third Circuit affirmed: Title VII pleadings insufficient; Eleventh Amendment bars state-law claims in federal court; no constitutionally protected property interest in reclassification because the governing New Jersey regulation vested discretion in the appointing authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Title VII discrimination/retaliation pleadings	Chee-Wah alleged race and gender discrimination and that she was qualified for promotion	Complaint lacks facts showing available position, comparator, or an adverse employment action sufficient for Title VII	Dismissed with prejudice — pleadings insufficient to state a Title VII claim
Eleventh Amendment immunity for state-law claims	Sought damages and injunctive relief on pendent New Jersey claims	State and state agencies immune from suit in federal court absent waiver or congressional abrogation; Ex Parte Young exception doesn’t apply to pendent state-law claims	Dismissed — Eleventh Amendment bars Counts IV–VI in federal court
Whether plaintiff has a property interest in job reclassification (Due Process)	Relied on Peper and argued a protected property interest in promotion/classification	Governing NJ regulation (N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9) gives appointing authority discretion to promote or remove duties, so no entitlement exists	Dismissed — no protected property interest; no due process violation
Availability of injunctive relief ordering promotion	Requested prospective relief (promotion) to remedy continuing violation	No valid federal claim remains that would support equitable relief; Eleventh Amendment/state law limits apply	Denied — injunctive relief not available given dismissal of underlying claims

Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289 (3d Cir. 1988) (standard of review for Rule 12(c) motions)
Society Hill Civic Ass’n v. Harris, 632 F.2d 1045 (3d Cir. 1980) (pleadings viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1974) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in federal court)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984) (limitations on Ex Parte Young and state-law claims against states)
Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (narrow exception permitting prospective relief against state officials for ongoing federal violations)
Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interest requires more than unilateral expectation; entitlement analysis)
Peper v. Princeton Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 389 A.2d 465 (N.J. 1978) (New Jersey discussion of employment interests and expectations)