Marcie a Redgrave v. Doug Ducey, 493 P.3d 878

Marcie Redgrave sued Arizona on behalf of in-home caregivers, alleging the State violated the FLSA by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime for around-the-clock care work.
Redgrave filed a putative class action in state court in February 2018; the State removed to federal court and asserted sovereign immunity; the district court dismissed Redgrave’s claims for lack of waiver.
The Ninth Circuit certified to the Arizona Supreme Court the question whether Arizona has consented to damages liability for a state agency’s violation of the FLSA minimum-wage and overtime provisions (29 U.S.C. §§ 206–207).
Central statutory material: Arizona’s Actions Against Public Entities and Public Employees Act (A.R.S. §§ 12-820 to 12-826) and its 1984 legislative statement that public entities are liable “in accordance with the statutes and common law of this state.”
The core legal tension: whether Arizona’s legislature has waived sovereign immunity to federal damages claims, and what standard governs such waiver (federal “unequivocal” standard vs. a state-law presumption favoring liability).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Arizona has consented to damages liability under the FLSA	Redgrave: Arizona (via Stone/Act and related provisions) waived sovereign immunity for such claims	State: Waiver must be expressly and unequivocally stated; the Act does not waive federal damages liability	No — Arizona has not consented to FLSA damages liability
Standard for proving waiver of sovereign immunity	Redgrave: Arizona’s pro-liability presumption under the Act governs waiver	State: Federal standard (unequivocal statutory text) applies and requires clear legislative consent	Federal/unequivocal standard applies to waiver of sovereign immunity to federal damages claims
Do state references to federal wage rules or administrative incorporation imply waiver	Redgrave/amici: References to federal overtime or incorporation of FLSA regs show intent to accept federal liability	State: Such references reflect compliance efforts, not legislative consent to be sued for federal damages	No — references/regulatory incorporation do not constitute the necessary express waiver

Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011) (state waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed)
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (States are immune from private suits for damages unless they consent)
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999) (waiver must be explicit in text)
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (limit on subjecting states to private suits without consent)
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (clear statutory waiver required for suit against government)
Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission, 93 Ariz. 384 (1963) (judicial abolition of common-law governmental immunity for state-law torts)
Doe ex rel. Doe v. State, 200 Ariz. 174 (2001) (Arizona courts construe Act narrowly; presumption of liability limited to state law)
Clouse ex rel. Clouse v. State, 199 Ariz. 196 (2000) (legislature has authority to define when public entities enjoy immunity)
Cockrell v. Board of Regents of N.M. State Univ., 45 P.3d 876 (N.M. 2002) (after judicial abolition of common-law immunity, waiver to federal claims requires clear legislative expression)
Byrd v. Oregon State Police, 238 P.3d 404 (Or. Ct. App. 2010) (court held OTCA waived state immunity for FLSA claims; discussed but treated as distinguishable)