Paula Maliandi v. Montclair State University
845 F.3d 77
3rd Cir.2016Background
- Paula Maliandi sued Montclair State University (MSU) claiming FMLA and NJLAD wrongful termination after medical leave for breast cancer; she sought damages and equitable relief.
- MSU moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity as an “arm of the State.” The District Court denied the motion.
- MSU appealed; the Third Circuit reviewed de novo and applied the three-factor Fitchik test (funding, state-law status, autonomy) to determine arm-of-state status.
- The Court treated the funding factor, state-law status, and autonomy as co-equal, with funding breaking close ties, per controlling precedent (Regents v. Doe; Benn).
- The Court found the funding factor counseled against immunity (no overarching legal obligation of New Jersey to pay MSU judgments and MSU had substantial non-state revenue), but the status-under-state-law and autonomy factors tipped in favor of immunity.
- Balancing the three Fitchik factors, the Third Circuit held MSU is an arm of the State of New Jersey and therefore entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; the case was reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with that holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MSU is an “arm of the State” entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity | Maliandi argued MSU is not an arm of the State and thus is subject to federal suit on FMLA/NJLAD claims | MSU argued it is an arm of the State and immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment | MSU is an arm of the State; Eleventh Amendment immunity applies (case reversed) |
| Funding factor: Is New Jersey legally obligated to pay judgments against MSU? | Maliandi emphasized statutory limits and that MSU’s budget reliance on the State is not decisive | MSU emphasized that MSU’s financials are included in State reporting and that the State effectively bears judgment costs | Held against immunity: no general legal obligation of the State to pay MSU judgments and MSU has substantial independent revenues |
| Status under state law: Do statutes/case law treat MSU as a state agency? | Maliandi argued statutes and case law are ambiguous and some indicia point against state-actor status | MSU pointed to statutory placement in Department of State, immunity from taxes, subject-to-state laws, and other indicia of state status | Held for immunity: overall statutory regime and attributes (tax immunity, inability to sue and be sued broadly, civil service/APA application) favor arm status |
| Autonomy: Is MSU sufficiently controlled by State governance to qualify as an arm? | Maliandi argued MSU has statutory statements of institutional autonomy and self-governance | MSU argued its trustees are gubernatorial appointees and the Secretary/Governor retain substantial oversight and budgetary control | Held for immunity: governance structure, gubernatorial appointments, oversight, reporting, and statutory controls limit autonomy enough to favor arm status |
Key Cases Cited
- Chisolm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (early Eleventh Amendment context) (original controversy prompting Amendment)
- Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) (Eleventh Amendment construed to bar suits by a State's own citizens)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (suits against "arms of the State" implicate Eleventh Amendment)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459 (1945) (State as real party in interest concept)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425 (1997) (rejecting formalistic financial-liability test; focus on legal obligation of state treasury)
- Fitchik v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 873 F.2d 655 (3d Cir. 1989) (establishing the three-factor test: funding, state-law status, autonomy)
- Urbano v. Board of Managers, 415 F.2d 247 (3d Cir. 1969) (earlier multi-factor approach)
- Bowers v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 475 F.3d 524 (3d Cir. 2007) (applying Fitchik to public university context)
- Febres v. Camden Bd. of Educ., 445 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2006) (discussing state-treasury criterion and legal obligation focus)
- Cooper v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 548 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2008) (applying and refining Fitchik factors)
- Kovats v. Rutgers, The State University, 822 F.2d 1303 (3d Cir. 1987) (Rutgers treated as largely autonomous; distinguishable)
- Skehan v. Bd. of Trs. of Bloomsburg State Coll., 538 F.2d 53 (3d Cir. 1976) (en banc) (state college treated as arm of the State)