953 F.3d 1123
9th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Marcie Redgrave is an "independent provider" hired by Arizona DDD to provide round‑the‑clock in‑home care for an ALTCS beneficiary; she alleges she worked 24 hours/day and was under‑compensated.
- Redgrave sued DDD, the Department of Economic Security, and state officers under the FLSA seeking unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and a declaration of entitlement to pay for all hours worked.
- The State removed the action to federal court and asserted state sovereign immunity as a defense; the district court rejected Redgrave’s arguments that removal or Arizona law waived immunity from FLSA liability.
- The Ninth Circuit framed the core legal question as whether Arizona has consented to private damages suits for violations of the FLSA’s minimum‑wage and overtime provisions.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded there is no controlling Arizona precedent resolving whether the Arizona Public Entities Act or other state law waives immunity from federal FLSA damage claims and therefore certified the question to the Arizona Supreme Court.
- The Ninth Circuit stayed proceedings and administratively closed the docket pending the Arizona Supreme Court’s answer to the certified question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona consented to private damages suits under FLSA (minimum wage/overtime) | Arizona has not retained immunity for such claims; Public Entities Act does not bar FLSA damages. | Arizona has not consented; sovereign immunity bars private federal‑law damage claims unless expressly waived. | Ninth Circuit certified the question to the Arizona Supreme Court for authoritative answer; did not decide on the merits. |
| Whether removal to federal court waived Arizona’s sovereign immunity from liability | Removal waived immunity from liability for FLSA damages. | Removal (if anything) waives immunity from suit only, not immunity from liability. | Ninth Circuit noted split in authority and did not resolve the liability‑waiver question. |
| Whether the Arizona Public Entities Act (A.R.S. §12‑820 et seq.) waives immunity for non‑tort federal claims like FLSA | The Act’s language and legislative history show it does not preserve immunity for FLSA claims; its immunity exceptions don’t encompass provider compensation decisions. | The Act addresses tort liability and should not be read to waive immunity for federal claims; state retained immunity for non‑tort claims. | Ninth Circuit found the Act ambiguous on this point and requested the Arizona Supreme Court’s guidance. |
| Proper rule of construction for waivers of sovereign immunity under Arizona law | Governmental liability is the rule; immunity construed narrowly (favoring waiver). | Federal canon requires a clear statement to waive sovereign immunity; should be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign. | Ninth Circuit identified conflicting Arizona authority on the construction canon and sought state court clarification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (states retain sovereign immunity from private damages suits absent consent)
- Walden v. Nevada, 945 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.) (removal invokes federal jurisdiction and waives sovereign immunity from suit)
- Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission, 381 P.2d 107 (Ariz. 1963) (abrogated governmental immunity for tort claims)
- Meyers ex rel. Benzing v. Texas, 410 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2005) (removal does not waive state immunity from liability)
- Trant v. Oklahoma, 754 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2014) (same: removal waives immunity from suit, not liability)
- Lombardo v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 540 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2008) (same on removal/no liability waiver)
- Doe ex rel. Doe v. State, 24 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. 2001) (discussion reflecting Arizona’s rule that governmental liability is the norm and immunity construed narrowly)
- City of Phoenix v. Fields, 201 P.3d 529 (Ariz. 2009) (applied provisions of the Public Entities Act outside pure tort contexts)