Wright v. Madison County Regional Water District

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

DENNIS WRIGHT PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 5:22-CV-5060

MADISON COUNTY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT DEFENDANT

OPINION AND ORDER

This case involves Plaintiff Dennis Wright’s claim that Defendant Madison County

Regional Water District (“MCRWD”) discriminated and retaliated against him in violation

of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). MCRWD filed a Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 16) that raises a challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction.1 MCRWD believes

it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. To resolve the motion the Court

must answer one question: Is MCRWD an arm of state government or is it some lesser

entity—such as a city or county? For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that

MCRWD is not an arm of the State of Arkansas, but rather a lesser entity that is not

1 MCRWD initially argued that it lacked enough employees to be subject to the ADEA

but has now dropped that argument. See Doc. 22, ¶ 1. According to the Supreme

Court, “state and local governments”—including state political subdivisions—“are

‘employer[s]’ covered by the ADEA regardless of their size.” Mt. Lemmon Fire Dist. v.

Guido, 139 S. Ct. 22, 27 (2018). To the extent MCRWD now argues that it is a “local

government,” but not a “political subdivision,” and therefore the ADEA is (somehow)

inapplicable (Doc. 22, ¶ 2), the Court disagrees. In Arkansas, “a county is a political

subdivision of the state for the more convenient administration of justice and exercise of

local legislative authority related to county affairs and is defined as a body politic and

corporate operating within specified geographic limitations established by law.” Ark.

Code Ann. §14-14-102. It stands to reason that an entity created by a political

subdivision is a further political subdivision for purposes of Mt. Lemmon’s extension of

ADEA liability to state and local governments.

entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Consequently, Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 16) is DENIED.

According to the Complaint, MCRWD “is a public entity created by Madison

County, Arkansas . . .”. (Doc. 2, p. 1). Plaintiff further explains that Ark. Code. Ann.

§ 14-116-201 is the statutory scheme under which MCRWD was formed and that such

public entities are not governed by the State, but rather “an autonomous board of

directors,” and further noting that MCRWD “receives income from water sales and does

not receive state funding.” (Doc. 19, pp. 1-2).2 In its Reply, MCRWD does not contest

this summary of its origin, operations, or organizational control. See Doc. 22.

“[An] important limit to the principle of sovereign immunity is that it bars suits

against States but not lesser entities. The immunity does not extend to suits prosecuted

against a municipal corporation or other governmental entity which is not an arm of the

State.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 756 (1999). “The Eleventh Amendment protects

States and their arms and instrumentalities from suit in federal court.” Webb v. City of

Maplewood, 889 F.3d 483, 485 (8th Cir. 2018); see also Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents,

528 U.S. 62, 91 (2000) (holding that the ADEA does not abrogate states’ Eleventh

Amendment immunity). However, a state’s political subdivisions are not entitled to

2 Upon meeting certain predicate requirements, “one hundred (100) or more qualified

voters residing and owning lands situated within the boundaries of the water district

proposed to be established under the provisions of this chapter may petition the circuit

court in the county to establish a water district for the purposes set out in this section.”

Ark. Code Ann. § 14-116-201(a). An entity created by this statutory authority is

classified as a “public nonprofit regional water district.” Ark. Code Ann. § 14-116-102.

Water districts are governed by a board of directors who are initially appointed by the

county circuit court and then subsequently stand for election by qualified electors

residing within the district. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-116-301. A person aggrieved by a

water district’s decisions about services or rates must seek relief from the circuit court of

the county where the water district was created––not from the State. Ark. Code Ann.

§ 14-116-403.

constitutional immunity. See Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’ Planning

Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 401 (1979) (“[T]he Court has consistently refused to construe the

[Eleventh] Amendment to afford protection to political subdivisions such as counties and

municipalities, even though such entities exercise a ‘slice of state power.”); N. Ins. Co.

of N.Y. v. Chatham Cnty., 547 U.S. 189, 193 (2006) (“[T]his Court has repeatedly

refused to extend sovereign immunity to counties.”).

When asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, it is a defendant’s

initial burden to establish its status as an arm of the State. See, e.g., Woods v. Rondout

Valley Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 466 F.3d 232, 237 (2d. Cir.2006) (finding

governmental entity invoking Eleventh Amendment immunity bears burden of proving

that it qualifies as an arm of the state); Gragg v. Ky. Cabinet for Workforce Dev., 289

F.3d 958, 963 (6th Cir. 2002) (same); Skelton v. Camp, 234 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir.

2000) (same); Christy v. Pa. Tpk. Comm'n, 54 F.3d 1140, 1144 (3d Cir.1995) (same);

ITSI TV Prods., Inc. v. Agric. Ass'ns, 3 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1993) (same).

MCRWD has not met its burden here. MCRWD offers no facts or reasons, much

less proof, that it is an arm of the State. For the reasons discussed above, the Court

finds that MCRWD is a non-profit governmental entity which is not an arm of the State,

and therefore not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, IT IS

ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 29" day of November, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE