Kirkwood v. Department of Public Safety and Corrections State of Louisiana, No. 2:2015cv06981 - Document 16 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kirkwood v. Department of Public Safety and Corrections State of Louisiana Doc. 16 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A TIFFAN Y KIRKW OOD , Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15-6 9 8 1 D EP’T OF PU BLIC SAFETY AN D CORRECTION S, STATE OF LOU ISIAN A, D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E” ( 4 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(6) m otion to dism iss filed by Defendant, the Louisiana Departm ent of Public Safety and Corrections. 1 Plaintiff, Tiffany Kirkwood, opposes the m otion. 2 For the reasons that follow, the m otion is GRAN TED . BACKGROU N D According to her Com plaint, Plaintiff worked as a probation officer for the Louisiana Departm ent of Public Safety and Corrections (“LDPSC”) in the New Orleans area until J une 13, 20 13, when she was term inated. 3 Plaintiff alleges that, while she was em ployed by the LDPSC, she began experiencing a num ber of serious m edical problem s, which required her to take m ultiple pre-approved leaves of absen ce. 4 Plaintiff also alleges that, during the periods of tim e when she could work and was not on m edical leave, she experienced discrim ination and harassm ent at the hands of her state-em ployed supervisors. 5 As part and parcel of the alleged harassm ent, Plaintiff contends her supervisors began filin g violation reports, known as VR-1s, outlining purported violations 1 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. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com of work-place policy com m itted by the Plaintiff. 6 According to Plaintiff, it was a “barrage” of VR-1s subm itted by her supervisors that resulted in her being term inated from the LDPSC on J une 13, 20 13. On Decem ber 22, 20 15, Plaintiff filed suit against her form er em ployer, the Louisiana Departm ent of Public Safety and Corrections (“LDPSC”), alleging violations of (1) the Am ericans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), (2) state em ploym ent discrim in ation law, and (3) Louisiana Civil Code articles 2315, 2316, and 2320 . On May 5, 20 16, LDPSC filed a Rule 12(b)(6) m otion to dism iss, arguing that Plaintiff’s state-law claim s 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 im m unity. It is this m otion which is before the Court for decision. LAW AN D AN ALYSIS 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 im m une from suit because, as an arm of the State of Louisiana, the LDPSC benefits from sovereign im m unity under the Eleventh Am endm ent to the United States Constitution. 8 “The Eleventh Am endm ent to the United States Constitution bars an action for m onetary dam ages 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 Am endm ent or by consent of the State.”9 6 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. 20 14) (citin g Sem inole Tribe of Fl. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996); Kim el v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (20 0 0 )). 7 2 “Though the language of the Eleventh Am endm ent does not specifically address suits against the State by its own citizens, the Suprem e Court has con sistently held that an unconsenting State is im m une from suits brought in federal court by her own citizens as well as citizen s of other states.”10 Furtherm ore, the Eleventh Am en dm ent “extends to actions against state agencies or entities that are classified as ‘arm s of the state.’”11 The State of Louisiana has not waived its sovereign im m unity under the Eleventh Am endm ent such that it has consented to be sued in federal court. In fact, Louisiana explicitly m aintains its sovereign im m unity by statute. 12 Furtherm ore, “Congress has not validly abrogated states’ Eleventh Am endm en t im m unity under Title I of the ADA.”13 The Suprem e Court in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabam a v. Garrett specifically held that the Eleventh Am endm ent bars ADA Title I claim s 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 im m unity of the states with respect to Title I of the ADA, the LDPSC, an arm of the State of Louisiana, 15 is im m une from Plaintiff’s claim under the ADA. As a result, the Court m ust dism iss Plaintiff’s Title I ADA claim for lack of subject-m atter jurisdiction. 10 Id. (internal quotation m arks om itted) (citin g Edelm an v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662– 63 (1974)). Id. (citin g Regents of the Univ. of Ca. v. John Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997); Perez v. Region 20 Educ. Serv. Ctr., 30 7 F.3d 318, 326 (5th Cir. 20 0 2)). 12 LA. R EV. STAT. § 13:510 6 (“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 im m unity in tort contract suits but it has not waived its im m un ity under the Eleventh Am endm ent from suit in federal court.”). 13 Fields v. Dep’t of Public Safety , 911 F. Supp. 2d 373, 381 (M.D. La. 20 12) (citing Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabam a v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 364 (20 0 1); Douglas v. California Dep’t of Youth Auth., 271 F.3d 812, 821, as am ended by 271 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 20 0 1); 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 om itted) (“Defendant is a state agency created by the State of Louisiana under La.Rev.Stat. § 40 :130 1. Likewise, if any m onetary judgm ent 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 m ay assert sovereign im m unity against suit in federal court.”); see also Cham pagne v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, 188 F.3d 312, 313 (5th Cir. 1999). 11 3 Plaintiff’s rem aining claim s are state-law claim s over which the Court possesses only supplem ental jurisdiction. Title 28, United States Code, Section 1367(c), provides that district courts m ay decline to exercise supplem ental jurisdiction over state law claim s if, inter alia, “the district court has dism issed all claim s over which it has original jurisdiction.” Such is the case here, as the Court has dism issed 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 declin e to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s rem aining claim s. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORD ERED that the m otion to dism iss filed by the Louisiana Departm ent of Public Safety and Corrections is GRAN TED . Because the Court lacks subject-m atter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claim s, they are hereby D ISMISSED W ITH OU T PREJU D ICE. N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 5th d ay o f Ju n e , 2 0 16 . ________________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
