Riggins v. The State of Arkansas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

KENNETH RIGGINS PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 3:24-CV-3001

STATE OF ARKANSAS DEFENDANT

OPINION AND ORDER

Currently before the Court is Defendant State of Arkansas’s Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. 7) and Brief in Support (Doc. 8). Plaintiff Kenneth Riggins filed a Response in

Opposition (Doc. 9) and Brief in Support (Doc. 10). For the reasons stated herein, the

Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Mr. Riggins alleges in his Complaint (Doc. 2) that he was constructively discharged

from his job as Area Livestock Inspector Supervisor for the Livestock and Poultry

Commission, which he asserts is an entity existing under the Arkansas Department of

Agriculture. Though the State asserts that Mr. Riggins should have sued the Livestock

and Poultry Commission and not the State itself, Mr. Riggins disagrees and maintains

that his true employer was the State. The Court will assume the facts as Mr. Riggins

pleads them and consider the State to have been his employer for purposes of evaluating

this Motion."

' The Complaint would require amendment if Mr. Riggins’s true employer were the

Livestock and Poultry Commission. However, even if that were the case, it is likely the

Commission would qualify as an arm or instrumentality of the State—and the Court's

Eleventh Amendment analysis below would apply equally to the Commission. See Webb

v. City of Maplewood, 889 F.3d 483, 485 (8th Cir. 2018) (‘The Eleventh Amendment

protects States and their arms and instrumentalities from suit in federal court.”).

Mr. Riggins brings the following causes of action against the State: (1) gender

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Arkansas Civil Rights

Act (“ACRA’); (2) age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

(“ADEA”) and the Arkansas Age Discrimination Act (“AADA’); (3) failure to pay overtime

in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act

(“AMWA"); (4) violations of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) and the Arkansas Wage

Discrimination Act (“AWDA’); and (5) breach of contract for failing to pay a promised 10%

salary raise. In terms of relief, Mr. Riggins seeks compensatory and punitive damages,

reinstatement to his previous position, and reimbursement of his attorney's fees and

costs.

|. Dismissal of Certain Claims Under Rule 12(b)(1)

The State argues that it cannot be sued in federal court for violations of most of

the statutes cited in the Complaint due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. As a result, the

State requests dismissal of these claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Such motions “may be resolved either on the face

of the pleadings or upon factual determinations made in consideration of matters outside

of the pleadings.” Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps. Div. of Intern. Bhd. of Teamsters v. Union

Pac. R.R. Co., 475 F. Supp. 2d 819, 834-35 (N.D. lowa 2007) (citing Titus v. Sullivan, 4

F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993); Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 n.6 (8th Cir.

1990)). Here, the 12(b)(1) issues may be resolved on the face of the Complaint.

“[A]n unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own

citizens as well as by citizens of another state.” Emps. v. Mo. Pub Health & Welfare

Dep't, 411 U.S. 279, 280 (1973). “[T]he Eleventh Amendment's restriction on the federal

judicial power is based in large part on ‘the problems of federalism inherent in making one

sovereign appear against its will in the courts of the other.’”” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.

v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 117 (1984) (quoting Mo. Pub. Health & Welfare, 411 U.S. at

294 (MARSHALL, J., concurring)). According to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the

Eleventh Amendment, sovereign immunity may be waived and a “State may consent to

suit against it in federal court.” /d. at 99. However, a waiver of sovereign immunity by a

State must be “unequivocally expressed.” /d.

Alternatively, Congress may require a State to submit to suit in federal court for

violations of the U.S. Constitution or violations of federal statute. “Congress has power

with respect to the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the

Eleventh Amendment immunity.” /d. However, once again, such abrogation of State

immunity “require[s] an unequivocal expression of intent [by Congress] to overturn the

constitutionally guaranteed immunity of the several States.” /d. (internal quotation and

citation omitted). “The [Eleventh] Amendment thus is a specific constitutional bar against

hearing even federal claims that otherwise would be within the jurisdiction of the federal

courts.” /d. at 120 (emphasis in original); see also Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi,

292 U.S. 313, 322 (1934) (“But, although a case may arise under the Constitution and

laws of the United States, the judicial power does not extend to it if the suit is sought to

be prosecuted by a State without her consent, by one of her own citizens.”).

Even pendent state law claims are barred from proceeding in federal court if the

State has not consented to be sued in that forum—regardless of the relief that has been

requested. The Supreme Court clarified this point in Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 120.

[P]Jendent jurisdiction is a judge-made doctrine of expediency and efficiency

derived from the general Art. III language conferring power to hear alll

“cases” arising under federal law or between diverse parties .. . . The

Eleventh Amendment should not be construed to apply with less force to

this implied form of jurisdiction than it does to the explicitly granted power

to hear federal claims. The history of the adoption and development of the

Amendment . . . confirms that it is an independent limitation on all exercises

of Art. Ill power: “the entire judicial power granted by the Constitution does

not embrace authority to entertain suit brought by private parties against a

State without consent given,” Ex parte State of New York No. 1, 256 U.S.

490, 497, 41 S.Ct. 588, 589, 65 L.Ed. 1057 (1921). If we were to hold

otherwise, a federal court could award damages against a State on the

basis of a pendent claim.

With those principles in mind, the Court now turns its attention to the State’s

Eleventh Amendment immunity claims as to each cause of action listed in the Complaint.

A. Federal Claims

1. ADEA and FLSA

Mr. Riggins admits in his Response to the Motion to Dismiss that his ADEA and

FLSA claims are barred by to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Doc. 10, p. 4. The

Court agrees.

The Supreme Court determined in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents that private

citizens could not sue the States in any court—federal or state—for violations of the ADEA

because “Congress did not validly abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity to suits” for

violations of this federal statute. 528 U.S. 62, 91 (2000). The Court further noted that state

employees were not without any avenue to sue for age discrimination, as most “are

protected by state age discrimination statutes and may recover money damages from

their state employers, in almost every State of the Union.” Id.

The Supreme Court has also made clear that “Congress did not lift the sovereign

immunity of the States under the FLSA” Mo. Pub. Health & Welfare, 411 U.S. at 285; see

also id. (“But we have found not a word in the history of the 1966 amendments to indicate

a purpose of Congress to make it possible for a citizen of that State or another State to

sue the State in the federal courts.”). State employees are not entirely without recourse,

however, when their employer fails to pay them adequate minimum wages and overtime

compensation. The Supreme Court observed that the federal government is empowered

to bring suit against the individual States. Consequently, the U.S. Secretary of Labor may

bring suit against a State for unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation

and enjoin violations of the FLSA. /d. at 285-86.

Accordingly, Mr. Riggins’s ADEA and FLSA claims are DISMISSED for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).

2. Title Vil of the Civil Rights Act

Arkansas is not immune from suit in federal court for claims arising under Title VII.

See Okruhlik v. Univ. of Ark., 255 F.3d 615, 627 (8th Cir. 2001) (“Since Congress

expressed its unequivocal intent to abrogate immunity and acted pursuant to its

constitutional authority, it validly abrogated the Eleventh Amendment for claims of

disparate treatment and impact on the basis of gender and race.”). Therefore, the Court

maintains valid subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Riggins’s gender discrimination claim

under Title VII, which means the claim is not subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1).

3. EPA

The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Riggins’s EPA claim.

“Congress properly abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity when it enacted the EPA.”

O’Sullivan v. Minnesota, 191 F.3d 965, 967 (8th Cir. 1999). This claim is similarly not

subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1).

B. State Law Claims

It was Mr. Riggins’s burden to prove that the State consented to suit in federal

court for violations of state common law and state statute. See Buckler v. United States,

919 F.3d 1038, 1044 (8th Cir. 2019). He failed to do this, and the Court is not aware that

the State waived or abrogated its Eleventh Amendment immunity as to any state law

claims alleged in the Complaint.?

2 In particular, the Court located case law holding that employment-related contract

claims brought by state employees are barred from litigation in federal court pursuant to

Arkansas’s immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. See Dover Elevator Co. v. Ark.

State Univ., 64 F.3d 442, 446-47 (8th Cir. 1995) (dismissing state employee’s contract

claim). Moreover, the Arkansas Supreme Court has held that ACRA claims for damages

against the State are barred by state sovereign immunity (also known as common-law

sovereign immunity). See Short v. Westark Comm. Coll., 347 Ark. 497, 504 (2002).

With all that said, however, Mr. Riggins is not likely to be left without any remedy at all

against the State once the Court dismisses his pendent claims. The Arkansas State

Claims Commission has jurisdiction over “[a] claim or action that is barred by the doctrine

of sovereign immunity under Arkansas Constitution, Article 5, § 20, from being litigated in

a court of general jurisdiction, except as otherwise provided by law.” Ark. Code Ann. § 19-

10-204(a)(1). And the Arkansas Supreme Court has suggested that wage and hour claims

and contract claims should be brought before the Claims Commission. See, e.g., Bd. of

Trs. of Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews, 2018 Ark. 12, at *11-12.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Arkansas is immune from suit in federal court as

to all state statutory and common-law claims, and they are DISMISSED under Rule

12(b)(1) for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

ll. Dismissal of Certain Claims Under Rule 12(b)(6)

As discussed above, the only two claims that are subject to the Court's

jurisdiction are Count |, alleging gender discrimination under Title VII, and Count IV,

alleging a violation or violations of the EPA. Arkansas argues that both claims should be

dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court must therefore consider whether either claim,

as pleaded in the Complaint, “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” /d.

Arkansas's only criticism of the Title VII claim is that the wrong defendant was

named. As indicated previously, the Court declines to wade into this factual dispute on a

Rule 12 motion and suggests that if Arkansas has proof that it is not Mr. Riggins’s former

employer, it should submit such proof in the context of a Rule 56 motion.

As for the EPA claim, Arkansas contends that the Complaint fails to adequately

allege that the wage disparity between Mr. Riggins and his female counterpart was

because of sex. The Court disagrees and finds Mr. Riggins has stated a plausible claim

under the EPA. Accordingly, the 12(b)(6) Motions as to the Title VIl and EPA claims are

DENIED.

lll. CONCLUSION

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant State of Arkansas’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Counts II, Ill, V, VI, VII,

VIII, and IX are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction due to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Counts | and IV will remain

for further adjudication. Plaintiff Riggins is DIRECTED to file an amended complaint that

conforms to these rulings by no later than May 28, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 1e', of May, 2024.

ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE