Tina Elizabeth Lee v. State of Iowa and Polk County Clerk of Court
874 N.W.2d 631
| Iowa | 2016Background
- Tina Lee, a former Polk County Clerk of Court employee, sued the State of Iowa and the Polk County Clerk under the FMLA’s self-care provision after her 2004 termination for taking leave to treat an anxiety disorder.
- The district court awarded Lee damages, reinstatement, liquidated damages, training relief, and attorney fees and costs; the State appealed asserting sovereign immunity.
- This court (Lee I) reversed noninjunctive relief based on Coleman (U.S. Supreme Court) and remanded to determine what relief remained enforceable under Ex parte Young; on remand the district court ordered reinstatement and back pay from the 2007 order (Lee II), which this court affirmed.
- Lee sought attorney fees and costs for litigation before and after the appeals; the district court awarded fees and costs in full. The State appealed that award.
- The Iowa Supreme Court held state sovereign immunity bars fee awards for work dedicated to securing retroactive monetary relief but does not bar fee awards for work incurred in obtaining prospective relief under Ex parte Young; remanded to apportion and award fees limited to prospective-relief work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source of authority for prospective relief | Relief arises from FMLA and is enforceable via Ex parte Young | Prospective relief authority unclear; but Ex parte Young governs | Ex parte Young is the mechanism permitting suit; entitlement to relief depends on FMLA merits |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars fee awards in Ex parte Young FMLA suits | Fees are recoverable as costs under FMLA; sovereign immunity doesn’t bar fees ancillary to prospective relief | Sovereign immunity bars fee awards because FMLA self-care provision was not a valid abrogation of immunity | Sovereign immunity does not bar fees for attorney work that was ancillary to obtaining prospective relief; it bars fees for work solely pursuing retroactive monetary relief |
| Whether FMLA mandates fees to a prevailing plaintiff | FMLA §2617(a)(3) requires courts to award fees and costs to any plaintiff awarded a judgment | State contends plaintiff is not a prevailing party after reversals, so fees not authorized | The FMLA fee provision is mandatory; Lee’s reinstatement order (as sustained/remanded) constituted a judgment entitling her to fees for prevailing on the action overall |
| Proper amount and allocation of fees | Lee sought all fees and costs incurred at various stages | State urged sovereign immunity and challenged award scope | Remand required: district court must apportion fees, awarding only reasonable fees for work related to prospective relief and excluding or adjusting fees tied solely to retroactive claims; follow Hensley principles for partial success |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits suits against state officials for prospective relief to vindicate federal law)
- Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978) (upheld attorney-fee awards ancillary to prospective relief)
- Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980) (awarding fees against states under §1988 in Ex parte Young suits permissible)
- Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (1989) (sovereign immunity does not bar attorney fees ancillary to prospective relief)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (distinguishes permissible prospective relief from barred retroactive monetary relief)
- Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30 (2012) (held Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity for FMLA self-care provision)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (discusses state sovereign immunity principles and applicability in state courts)