Kirkwood v. Department of Public Safety and Corrections State of Louisiana

Filing 16

ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that the 10 motion to dismiss filed by the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections is GRANTED. Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs claims, they are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TIFFANY KIRKWOOD,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-6981

DEP’T OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND CORRECTIONS, STATE OF
LOUISIANA,
Defendant

SECTION: “E” (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss filed by Defendant, the
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. 1 Plaintiff, Tiffany Kirkwood,
opposes the motion. 2 For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
According to her Complaint, Plaintiff worked as a probation officer for the
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“LDPSC”) in the New Orleans
area until June 13, 2013, when she was terminated. 3 Plaintiff alleges that, while she was
employed by the LDPSC, she began experiencing a number of serious medical problems,
which required her to take multiple pre-approved leaves of absence. 4 Plaintiff also alleges
that, during the periods of time when she could work and was not on medical leave, she
experienced discrimination and harassment at the hands of her state-employed
supervisors. 5 As part and parcel of the alleged harassment, Plaintiff contends her
supervisors began filing violation reports, known as VR-1s, outlining purported violations

R. Doc. 10.
R. Doc. 11.
3 R. Doc. 1 at 2.
4 R. Doc. 1 at 3–5.
5 R. Doc. 1 at 2–6.
1

2

1

of work-place policy committed by the Plaintiff. 6 According to Plaintiff, it was a “barrage”
of VR-1s submitted by her supervisors that resulted in her being terminated from the
LDPSC on June 13, 2013.
On December 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, the
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“LDPSC”), alleging violations of
(1) the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), (2) state employment discrimination law,
and (3) Louisiana Civil Code articles 2315, 2316, and 2320. On May 5, 2016, LDPSC filed
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff’s state-law claims have
prescribed and, with respect to Plaintiff’s federal claim under the ADA, the LDPSC is an
arm of the State of Louisiana and, thus, benefits from sovereign immunity. It is this
motion which is before the Court for decision.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s sole federal claim is for a violation of Title I of the ADA. 7 This claim, a
federal question, serves as the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction over this action. With
respect to Plaintiff’s ADA claim, the LDPSC contends it is immune from suit because, as
an arm of the State of Louisiana, the LDPSC benefits from sovereign immunity under the
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.8
“The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars an action for
monetary damages by a private individual in federal court against a sovereign state and
its agencies and officials unless specifically abrogated by Congress pursuant to its legal
authority under Section V of the Fourteenth Amendment or by consent of the State.” 9

R. Doc. 1 at 2–7.
See R. Doc. 1.
8 R. Doc. 10-2 at 4.
9 Johnson-Blount v. Bd. of Sup’rs for S. Univ., 994 F. Supp. 2d 780, 783 (M.D. La. 2014) (citing Seminole
Tribe of Fl. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996); Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000)).
6
7

2

“Though the language of the Eleventh Amendment does not specifically address suits
against the State by its own citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently held that an
unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal court by her own citizens as
well as citizens of other states.” 10 Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment “extends to
actions against state agencies or entities that are classified as ‘arms of the state.’” 11
The State of Louisiana has not waived its sovereign immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment such that it has consented to be sued in federal court. In fact, Louisiana
explicitly maintains its sovereign immunity by statute. 12 Furthermore, “Congress has not
validly abrogated states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity under Title I of the ADA.” 13 The
Supreme Court in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett specifically
held that the Eleventh Amendment bars ADA Title I claims against the states in federal
court. 14 Because the State of Louisiana has not consented to suit in federal court, and
because Congress has not abrogated the sovereign immunity of the states with respect to
Title I of the ADA, the LDPSC, an arm of the State of Louisiana, 15 is immune from
Plaintiff’s claim under the ADA. As a result, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s Title I ADA
claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662–63 (1974)).
Id. (citing Regents of the Univ. of Ca. v. John Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997); Perez v. Region 20 Educ.
Serv. Ctr., 307 F.3d 318, 326 (5th Cir. 2002)).
12 LA. REV. STAT. § 13:5106 (“No suit against the state or a state agency or political subdivision shall be
instituted in any court other than a Louisiana state court.”). See also Citrano v. Allen Correctional Ctr., 891
F. Supp. 312, 320 (W.D. La. 1995) (“The State of Louisiana has waived sovereign immunity in tort contract
suits but it has not waived its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from suit in federal court.”).
13 Fields v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 911 F. Supp. 2d 373, 381 (M.D. La. 2012) (citing Bd. of Trustees of Univ.
of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 364 (2001); Douglas v. California Dep’t of Youth Auth., 271 F.3d 812,
821, as amended by 271 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2001); Clark v. State of California, 123 F.3d 1267 (9th Cir. 1997)).
14 Garrett, 531 U.S. at 364.
15 See, e.g., Fields, 911 F. Supp. 2d at 377–78 (citations omitted) (“Defendant is a state agency created by
the State of Louisiana under La.Rev.Stat. § 40:1301. Likewise, if any monetary judgment is obtained against
the Defendant, LDPSC, it will be paid from the State treasury. . . . [T]he Fifth Circuit has found the LDPSC
to be an ‘arm of the state.’ Based upon the Fifth Circuit’s finding, this Court finds that Defendant is an ‘arm
of the state’ and may assert sovereign immunity against suit in federal court.”); see also Champagne v.
Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, 188 F.3d 312, 313 (5th Cir. 1999).
10
11

3

Plaintiff’s remaining claims are state-law claims over which the Court possesses
only supplemental jurisdiction. Title 28, United States Code, Section 1367(c), provides
that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims
if, inter alia, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction.” Such is the case here, as the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s sole federal claim
for a violation of Title I of the ADA. As a result, the Court will exercise its discretion
pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1367(c), and decline to exercise
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by
the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections is GRANTED. Because the
Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claims, they are hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of June, 2016.
________________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4