Mojsilovic v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Board of Regents
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20596
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Danijela and Aleksandar Mojsilovic, Serbian scientists, were hired by the University of Oklahoma on H‑1B visas to work at its Health Sciences Center under Dr. William Hildebrand.
- The Mojsilovics allege Hildebrand forced them to perform unpaid, additional work for his private company, Pure Protein, and threatened to have their visas revoked if they refused.
- They sued the University, Hildebrand, and Pure Protein asserting claims under the TVPRA (18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1595), FLSA, and Oklahoma wage law; they sought damages and equitable relief.
- The district court dismissed the claims against the University as barred by sovereign immunity; the Mojsilovics appealed only the TVPRA forced‑labor damages claim dismissal.
- The Mojsilovics argued sovereign immunity does not bar their TVPRA claim because (a) the TVPRA was enacted under the Thirteenth Amendment (so States surrendered immunity), and (b) the statute’s use of broad terms like “whoever” manifests unmistakable intent to abrogate immunity.
- The University argued it retained sovereign immunity; the district court agreed and dismissed the TVPRA claim; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Congress unmistakably abrogated state sovereign immunity in the TVPRA | Mojsilovic: statutory language ("perpetrator"/"whoever") shows clear intent to allow suits against States | University: broad terms do not constitute an unmistakably clear abrogation of sovereign immunity | Held: No. "Whoever"/"perpetrator" is not an unmistakably clear statement abrogating state immunity |
| Whether Congress had constitutional authority to abrogate state immunity for the TVPRA | Mojsilovic: States surrendered immunity by ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment; TVPRA targets modern slavery so it falls under §13 | University: TVPRA was enacted under Congress’s Commerce Clause authority, under which Congress cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity | Held: TVPRA was enacted under the Commerce Clause, not the Thirteenth Amendment; Congress lacked authority under Article I to abrogate state immunity, so dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (statute must unmistakably abrogate sovereign immunity)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (Congress cannot abrogate state immunity under Article I)
- Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (general statutory terms insufficient to abrogate sovereign immunity)
- Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 (jurisdictional grants do not imply abrogation of immunity)
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (undefined "whoever" did not abrogate state immunity)
- Nev. Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (limits on Article I abrogation authority)
- Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (Bankruptcy Clause unique treatment of state immunity)
- Ditullio v. Boehm, 662 F.3d 1091 (discussing source of TVPRA authority)
- Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197 (standard of review for sovereign immunity dismissal)