Thomas v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 5 Motion to Dismiss in Part; the Complaint is dismissed in part with prejudice as to Count Four of the Complaint. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 10/15/2018. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 10/15/18)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ERNEST A. THOMAS,
*
Plaintiff,
*
v.
*
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Civil Action No. PX-18-0175
*
*
Defendant.
******
Plaintiff Ernest A. Thomas (“Thomas”), proceeding pro se, brings suit against Defendant
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) for claims of race discrimination,
national origin discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation. Now pending before the
Court is WMATA’s motion to dismiss Count Four of Thomas’ Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). ECF No. 5. The motion is fully briefed, and no hearing is
necessary. See D. Md. Loc. R. 105.6. Upon consideration of the Complaint and all pleadings,
the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count Four.
I.
BACKGROUND
On January 19, 2018, Thomas filed a complaint against WMATA alleging race, national
origin, and age discrimination, as well as retaliation. ECF No. 1. Specifically, Thomas avers
that WMATA’s decision not to promote him to Manager of Operations Training was
discriminatory and in retaliation for past protected activity. ECF No. 1 ¶4. WMATA moves to
dismiss Count Four of Plaintiff’s Complaint, brought under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), contending that WMATA is immune from ADEA claims
1
under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. ECF. No. 5. For the reasons
stated below, the Court grants Defendant’s motion.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes the Complaint liberally to
ensure that potentially meritorious claims survive challenge. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9
(1980). That said, the Court cannot ignore a pro se plaintiff’s clear failure to allege facts setting
forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990)
(“The ‘special judicial solicitude’ with which a district court should view such pro se complaints
does not transform the court into an advocate. Only those questions which are squarely
presented to a court may properly be addressed.” (quoting Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d
1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985))). When reviewing pro se complaints, a court must not abdicate its
“legitimate advisory role” to become an “advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most
successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett, 775 F.2d at 1278.
WMATA’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is governed by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1).
Generally, “questions of subject matter
jurisdiction must be decided ‘first, because they concern the court’s very power to hear the
case.’” Owens–Illinois, Inc. v. Meade, 186 F.3d 435, 442 n.4 (4th Cir.1999) (quoting 2 James
Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 12.30[1] (3d ed. 1998)). The plaintiff bears the
burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction properly exists in federal court. See Evans v.
B.F. Perkins Co., a Div. of Standex Int’l Corp., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). When a party
desires to proceed in a federal court, it “must allege and, when challenged, must demonstrate the
federal court’s jurisdiction over the matter.” Home Buyers Warranty Corp. v. Hanna, 750 F.3d
427, 432 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Strawn v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 530 F.3d 293, 296 (4th
2
Cir.2008)). On a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the court “may consider evidence outside the pleadings”
to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the case before it. Richmond, Fredericksburg &
Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991); see also Evans, 166 F.3d
at 647. The court will grant such a motion “only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in
dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Richmond, 945 F.2d at
768.
III.
DISCUSSION
WMATA asserts that it is immune from ADEA suits. This Court agrees. The Eleventh
Amendment provides that a State is immune from suit in federal court brought by its citizens or
citizens of another state. Jones v. WMATA, 205 F.3d 428, 431 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (citing Morris v.
WMATA, 781 F.2d 218, 222 (D.C.Cir.1986)). “Although the immunity is that of the state, some
agencies exercising state power have been permitted to invoke the Amendment in order to
protect the state treasury from liability that would have had essentially the same practical
consequences as a judgment against the state itself.” Id. (quoting Lake Country Estates v. Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 400).
WMATA is an agency conferred with Eleventh Amendment protection from suit.
WMATA is a creature of a tristate Compact (Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C.) enacted
by Congress. Jones, 205 F.3d at 432. “[I]n signing the WMATA Compact, Virginia and
Maryland each conferred its immunity upon WMATA;” WMATA thus enjoys immunity to the
same extent as the states in the exercise of its “governmental function.” Id. This “governmental
function” immunity has been held to encompass WMATA’s hiring, training, and supervision of
WMATA personnel. Id. (quoting Burkhart v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 112 F.3d
3
1207, 1217 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). This principle would extend to WMATA’s decision not to
promote Thomas to Manager of Operations Training.
However, simply because WMATA enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity concurrent
with a state sovereign does not end the analysis. In enacting federal statutory schemes to reach
discriminatory practices, Congress may abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, Fitzpatrick v.
Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 457 (1976) (finding congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), or a state may consent to waiver of immunity in
exchange for federal funding consistent with the protections accorded to covered individuals.
Litman v. George Mason Univ., 186 F.3d 544, 555 (4th Cir. 1999) (finding receipt of funds under
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 permissibly conditioned on a waiver of Eleventh
Amendment immunity). But with respect to the ADEA, no such abrogation or waiver is at play.
See Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 91 (2000). Accordingly, WMATA enjoys
Eleventh Amendment protection from suit.
Thomas nonetheless contends that WMATA has waived its sovereign immunity by
engaging in “commercial activities which are outside of its mandate and generate funds not
associated with the coffers of states.” ECF No. 6 at 2. Thomas further notes that “any award of
financial damages will not have to be paid out of funds provided by tax payers of the citizens of
Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia or the Federal Government.” ECF No. 6 at 3.
Thomas’ arguments do not upset the analysis. Engaging in business activities does not result in
waiver of sovereign immunity. See Coll. Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ.
Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1991) (holding that a state cannot impliedly waive its sovereign
immunity by engaging in interstate commerce). Nor does WMATA’s funding source for
payment of damages implicate whether WMATA is immune from suit, for the “practical result”
4
of damages against WMATA “would be payment from the treasuries of Maryland and Virginia.”
See Jones, 205 F.3d at 432 (quoting Morris, 781 F.2d at 225). Count Four is accordingly
dismissed.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion, it is this 15th day of October, 2018,
by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED that:
1.
The Motion to Dismiss in Part filed by Defendant WASHINGTON
METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (ECF No. 5) BE, and the same
hereby IS, GRANTED;
2.
The Complaint filed by Plaintiff ERNEST THOMAS (ECF No. 1) BE, and the
same herby IS, DISMISSED IN PART WITH PREJUDICE as to Count Four of the
Complaint;
3.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order
to the parties.
10/15/2018
Date
/S/
Paula Xinis
United States District Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?