150 N.E.3d 666
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background:
- In 2013 Dustin King, who is deaf and uses ASL, requested an ASL interpreter for mandatory court-ordered mediation through Marion Circuit Court (MCC); the court denied the request and waived his mandatory participation.
- King sued in federal court alleging violations of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; the District Court dismissed the Rehab Act claims with prejudice as to all defendants and awarded King damages on his ADA claim against MCC.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed the ADA damages judgment, holding Title II did not abrogate Indiana’s sovereign immunity in this case and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice to raising the claim in state court.
- King then filed in Marion Superior Court alleging Title II and Section 504 violations; MCC moved to dismiss on grounds including sovereign immunity and res judicata; the trial court denied dismissal and the denial was certified for interlocutory appeal.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded the state trial court erred: the Rehabilitation Act claim is barred by claim preclusion; the federal-court adjudication precludes relitigation of whether Title II abrogates sovereign immunity; and the State has not waived sovereign immunity by state action for King’s non-tort ADA claim.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King’s Section 504 claim may proceed in state court | King: Modest Means program received federal funds (directly or indirectly), so Rehab Act applies | MCC: Federal District Court dismissed the Rehab Act claim with prejudice; res judicata bars relitigation | Court: Dismissal under Section 504 is barred by claim preclusion (res judicata); trial court erred denying dismissal |
| Whether Title II of the ADA abrogates Indiana’s sovereign immunity | King: Title II’s plain language abrogates state sovereign immunity, allowing suit in state court | MCC: Seventh Circuit already decided Title II does not abrogate sovereign immunity here; issue preclusion bars relitigation | Court: Issue preclusion applies; the question whether Title II abrogates immunity was necessarily decided against King in federal appellate proceedings, so state court cannot relitigate it |
| Whether Indiana waived sovereign immunity by state action (consent/legislative waiver) | King: Even if Title II doesn’t abrogate, the State may have consented or otherwise waived immunity allowing his ADA claim | MCC: No state action or statute waives sovereign immunity for this non-tort federal statutory claim | Court: No state waiver shown for non-tort ADA claims; sovereign immunity remains, so dismissal required |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Marion Circuit Court, 868 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2017) (held Title II did not abrogate Indiana's sovereign immunity in this case and reversed the district court judgment)
- Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976) (Congress may abrogate state sovereign immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it clearly intends to do so)
- Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) (abrogation requires unequivocal congressional intent and valid constitutional authority)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (states enjoy sovereign immunity from private suits in their own courts absent consent)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state entities and officials sued for damages)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (discusses when Title II enforcement may be validly grounded on congressional enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Esserman v. Indiana Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt., 84 N.E.3d 1185 (Ind. 2017) (Indiana Supreme Court on limits of state waiver of sovereign immunity for non-tort statutory claims)
- Campbell v. State, 284 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. 1972) (discusses historical scope of Indiana's consent to suit)