960 F.3d 253
5th Cir.2020Background:
- Plaintiff Gwendolyn M. Daniel, a nurse employed at Saint Paul University Hospital (a UTSMC facility), sued the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSMC) under the ADA alleging discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge.
- Daniel filed the suit in July 2018 seeking monetary and equitable relief; UTSMC moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding UTSMC is an arm of the State of Texas; a motion for reconsideration was denied.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo whether UTSMC qualifies as an arm of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes using the Clark six-factor test.
- The court found five of six Clark factors (including the dispositive funding factor) favored arm-of-the-state status and concluded a judgment against UTSMC would implicate state fiscal autonomy.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; plaintiff did not argue any exception to sovereign immunity.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UTSMC is an "arm of the state" for Eleventh Amendment immunity | UTSMC is not an arm of the state and thus not immune | UTSMC is part of the UT System and is an arm of Texas entitled to sovereign immunity | UTSMC is an arm of the state; immunity bars the suit |
| Source-of-funding (Clark factor 2) — would a judgment be paid from state funds? | Clinical facilities are privately funded; therefore a judgment would not implicate state funds | UTSMC receives state appropriations and state funding mechanisms could satisfy a judgment, implicating state fiscal sovereignty | Funding factor favors arm-of-state; plaintiff failed to show UTSMC financially independent from the state |
| Local autonomy and statewide concern (Factors 3 & 4) — is UTSMC locally autonomous or statewide in concern? | UTSMC operates locally in Dallas and is largely run by physicians/scientists, not the state | UTSMC is a component of the statewide UT System subject to state governance and oversight | Factors support arm-of-state status (UT System governance and statewide mission) |
| Ability to sue or be sued and use of property (Factors 5 & 6) | UTSMC has previously sued and been sued in its own name and manages facilities, suggesting independence | State law vests control in UT System/board of regents and grants eminent-domain and property control to the system/state | Factor 5 weighs against immunity but Factor 6 supports immunity; overall Clark test supports arm-of-state |
Key Cases Cited
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (describing Eleventh Amendment scope)
- Clark v. Tarrant County, Tex., 798 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1986) (establishing six-factor arm-of-the-state test)
- Providence Behavioral Health v. Grant Rd. Pub. Util. Dist., 902 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2018) (distinguishing arms of the state from local units)
- Richardson v. Southern Univ., 118 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 1997) (sovereign immunity protects arms of the state)
- United Carolina Bank v. Bd. of Regents of Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 665 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1982) (funding/segregated-funds analysis)
- Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Machete Prods., LLC v. Page, 809 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2015) (de novo review of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425 (arm-of-state is question of federal law)
- Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md., 566 U.S. 30 (2012) (states immune from suits absent waiver or valid congressional abrogation)