Levy v. Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services
789 F.3d 1164
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Paul Levy, a rehabilitation counselor at Kansas SRS, served as counselor for blind co-worker Tina Bruce and ordered a vocational assessment finding inadequate accommodations.
- SRS notified Levy in February 2009 of proposed termination for alleged conflict-of-interest and other misconduct; Levy resigned on February 25, 2009 after a termination meeting.
- Umholtz (the contractor) sued SRS in February 2011; Levy joined in March 2011 and later amended to add Rehabilitation Act claims; SRS preserved sovereign-immunity defense.
- District court granted summary judgment to SRS: (1) ADA claim barred by state sovereign immunity (no clear waiver by accepting federal funds); (2) Rehabilitation Act claim barred by Kansas’s two-year statute of limitations as applied by Tenth Circuit precedent.
- Levy appealed; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Levy’s argument that the Rehabilitation Act’s Spending-Clause waiver covers ADA retaliation claims and holding Baker controls the limitations analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kansas waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for Levy’s ADA retaliation claim by accepting federal funds (via Rehabilitation Act §2000d‑7) | Levy: Rehabilitation Act waiver and §504’s incorporation of ADA standards mean states waived immunity for ADA retaliation claims | SRS: No clear, voluntary waiver; Garrett and the statutory scheme show no waiver for ADA employment/retaliation claims | Held: No waiver; Rehabilitation Act waiver does not clearly and voluntarily waive immunity for ADA claims, so ADA claim barred by sovereign immunity |
| Whether Levy’s Rehabilitation Act claim is timely | Levy: Should borrow Kansas’s 3‑year statute for statutory causes of action (Kan. Stat. §60‑512) based on state caselaw characterizing such claims as statutory | SRS: Borrow the two‑year personal‑injury analogue (Kan. Stat. §60‑513) per Tenth Circuit precedent (Baker) | Held: Apply Tenth Circuit’s Baker precedent; two‑year statute applies and Levy’s claim (filed >2 years after discharge) is time‑barred |
| Whether district court had subject‑matter jurisdiction to add Rehabilitation Act claims after ADA claims were pled | Levy: Amendment permissible before SRS effectively raised immunity | SRS: Sovereign immunity implicates jurisdiction and could bar the amended claims | Held: District court had jurisdiction because SRS did not effectively raise immunity until summary judgment, and waiver/joinder had occurred earlier |
| Availability of compensatory damages on Rehabilitation Act claim | Levy: (argued) compensatory damages available | SRS: (not reached due to other defenses) | Held: Court did not reach damages issue because claim dismissed as time‑barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity for Title I ADA employment claims)
- Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985) (stringent rule for finding a state's waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (Congress does not hide major policy changes in ambiguous provisions)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (Title II ADA suits permissible where state conduct violates Fourteenth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (Title II ADA suits allowed when fundamental rights are implicated)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits suits for prospective relief against state officers despite Eleventh Amendment)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal)
- Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999) (state waiver requires clear declaration or voluntary invocation of federal jurisdiction)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (federal courts borrow appropriate state statute of limitations for federal causes of action)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989) (ease and predictability are factors in selecting borrowed statutes of limitations)
- Baker v. Bd. of Regents of Kan., 991 F.2d 628 (10th Cir. 1993) (Rehabilitation Act claims analogized to §1983/personal‑injury claims; two‑year Kansas limitations period applies)