943 F.3d 265
5th Cir.2019Background:
- Cutrer worked for the Tarrant County Workforce Development Board (d/b/a "Workforce Solutions") for 17 years and was fired six months before retirement eligibility after a long history of disability and workplace accommodation disputes.
- Workforce Solutions is a local workforce-development board formed by interlocal agreement among Tarrant County, Fort Worth, and Arlington; most employees are co‑employed by Insperity, Inc.
- After termination, parties initially agreed a written settlement for $33,750; Workforce Solutions later withdrew the settlement, changed Cutrer’s termination reason, and allegedly misused her personal information under the FCRA.
- Cutrer sued Workforce Solutions and Insperity for discrimination, ADA retaliation/post‑employment retaliation, and FCRA violations; the district court dismissed Workforce Solutions for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity and dismissed Insperity on other grounds.
- The Fifth Circuit considered whether Workforce Solutions may invoke state sovereign immunity (as an "arm of the state" under Clark factors), focusing especially on whether a judgment would be paid from the state treasury (the money factor).
- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court, holding Workforce Solutions failed to carry its burden to show it is an arm of the State entitled to sovereign immunity and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Workforce Solutions is entitled to Eleventh Amendment/state sovereign immunity as an "arm of the state" | Cutrer: Workforce Solutions is a local board, not the State; immunity inapplicable | Workforce Solutions: qualifies as an arm of the State and thus is immune | Held: Not established — Workforce Solutions failed to show it is the State or an arm of the State; immunity denied |
| Whether a judgment would implicate the state treasury (Clark money factor) | Cutrer: No record showing state treasury exposure; money factor not met | Workforce Solutions: alleges dependency on public funding and possible state payment or legislative appropriation | Held: Money-factor weight lacking — Workforce Solutions did not identify any concrete mechanism by which the State would pay judgments |
| Which party bears the burden to prove arm‑of‑state status and sufficiency of record | Cutrer: (implicitly) defendant must prove immunity | Workforce Solutions: invoked immunity; urged dismissal | Held: Entity invoking sovereign immunity bears burden; Workforce Solutions failed to satisfy it |
| Procedural forfeiture of claims against Insperity on appeal | Cutrer: argued claims vs Insperity below | Workforce Solutions/Insperity: argued dismissal proper | Held: Claims against Insperity forfeited on appeal for lack of briefing; appellate opinion addresses only Workforce Solutions |
Key Cases Cited
- Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793) (early Supreme Court suit against a State that prompted the Eleventh Amendment)
- Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529 (1890) (political subdivisions are not the sovereign and do not share state immunity)
- Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) (state sovereign immunity recognized as barring suits in federal court by private citizens)
- Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313 (1934) (discussing scope and response to Chisholm decisions)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (limitations on Congress’s abrogation of state immunity)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (state sovereign immunity extends to suits in state courts under certain circumstances)
- College Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999) (Eleventh Amendment and state immunity principles)
- Clark v. Tarrant County, 798 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1986) (establishing multi‑factor test to decide whether entity is an "arm of the state")
- Black v. N. Panola Sch. Dist., 461 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding the Clark money factor is the most important factor)
- Skelton v. Camp, 234 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 2000) (burden on defendant to prove arm‑of‑state status)
- Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enters., 486 U.S. 888 (1988) (observing limits of balancing tests and analogies)