842 F. Supp. 2d 354
D. Me.2012Background
- Remand from the First Circuit prompted DeCotiis to seek amendment of her complaint, modification of a prior order, and a strike of certain evidence.
- The court denied the motion to strike and proceeded to address the remaining motions.
- The original complaint alleged First Amendment retaliation, unconstitutional policy/monell liability, and supervisory failure; the First Circuit vacated and remanded Counts II and III for reconsideration.
- On remand, the court held Whittemore’s reintroduction is barred by the mandate rule and waiver, and refused to reinstate her, either individually or officially.
- The court held CDS-Cumberland is an arm of the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes, thus lacking subject-matter jurisdiction over Count II (First Amendment against CDS-Cumberland); Counts II and III of the original complaint were dismissed or limited accordingly, with ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims allowed against CDS-Cumberland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Whittemore can be rejoined or reinstated on remand | Plaintiff seeks to modify order and reinstate Whittemore | Whittemore is barred by mandate rule and waiver | Whittemore cannot be reinstated; mandate rule/waiver applies |
| Whether CDS-Cumberland is immune under the Eleventh Amendment from the First Amendment claim | CDS-Cumberland violates First Amendment rights | CDS-Cumberland is an arm of the state and immune | CDS-Cumberland is an arm of the state; Count II against CDS-Cumberland is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether ADA Title II retaliation claim against CDS-Cumberland survives despite immunity considerations | Retaliation claim under Title II is viable against CDS-Cumberland | Immunity may bar Title II retaliation claims predicated on Title I or II; liability may be barred | ADA Title II retaliation claim arising from public education services is allowed against CDS-Cumberland; Count III preserved against CDS-Cumberland under Title II |
| Whether Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim survives against CDS-Cumberland | § 504 retaliation claim should proceed | Argues immunity and pleading issues; Rehabilitation Act claims may be treated with ADA standards | Retaliation claim under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is viable against CDS-Cumberland |
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims against CDS-Cumberland | Remand permits consideration of amended claims | Sovereign immunity bars certain claims; only ADA/504-based retaliation claims survive | Court retains jurisdiction over ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims against CDS-Cumberland; Counts II and III narrowed/sustained accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Negron-Almeda v. Santiago, 579 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (serious-injustice exception to law of the case; factors for relief on remand)
- Negron-Almeda v. Santiago, 528 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2008) (law-of-the-case and mandate rule; exceptions and waiver considerations)
- Irizarry-Mora v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 647 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2011) (two-stage test for arm-of-the-state with Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (S. Ct. 2006) (Title II abrogation of sovereign immunity for damages when conduct violates Fourteenth Amendment)