“While Louisiana may have waived sovereign immunity with respect to some claims, La. Const. art. 1 § 26 makes it clear the State has not waived its sovereignty within the federal system.”
How later courts described this case
- “While Louisiana may have waived sovereign immunity with respect to some claims, La. Const. art. 1 § 26 makes it clear the State has not waived its sovereignty within the federal system.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Supreme Court of Louisiana
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #051
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 15th day of October, 2014, are as follows:
BY KNOLL, J.:
2014-CC-0585 CYNTHIA HOLLIDAY v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LSU AGRICULTURAL AND
MECHANICAL COLLEGE, ETC. (Parish of Orleans)
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
reversed. We hereby grant defendant’s Exception of No Cause of
Action. This matter is remanded to district court to allow the
plaintiff the opportunity to amend her petition to state a valid
cause of action if she can.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
10/15/14
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2014-CC-0585
CYNTHIA HOLLIDAY
VERSUS
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LSU AGRICULTURAL
AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, ETC.
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CIVIL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS
KNOLL, JUSTICE
This case concerns the State’s sovereign immunity from suit based on a
federal cause of action. A claim for damages was filed against the Board of
Supervisors of LSU Agricultural and Mechanical College, Etc. (State) pursuant to
the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (FMLA).
Plaintiff, Cynthia Holliday, alleges she was unlawfully terminated from her
employment with the State while on leave in 2009, in violation of the FMLA’s
“self-care” provision, which entitles an employee to take up to 12 work weeks of
unpaid leave per year under certain circumstances, including having a serious
health condition which interferes with the employee's ability to perform. 29 U.S.C.
§ 2612(a)(1). The FMLA creates a private right of action to seek money damages
“against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of
competent jurisdiction.” Id. at § 2617(a)(2).
On May 5, 2010, Holliday filed her “Petition for Damages for Violations of
the Family Medical Leave Act” in district court. The State filed an Exception of
No Cause of Action on the basis of sovereign immunity, which the district court
denied. The Fourth Circuit denied Supervisory Writs. For the reasons articulated
1
below, we find the trial court erred as matter of law in denying the State’s
Exception of No Cause of Action.
As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Coleman v. Court of
Appeals of Maryland, 132 S.Ct. 1327, 1333, 182 L.Ed.2d 296 (2012), “A
foundational premise of the federal system is that States, as sovereigns, are
immune from suits for damages, save as they elect to waive that defense. See
Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 72–73, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed.2d
522 (2000); Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636
(1999).” The only exception to the rule of the States’ sovereign immunity comes
with a valid exercise of congressional power under § 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Id. Such an exercise of congressional power requires identification of
a pattern of constitutional violations by the States and creation of a congruent and
proportional remedy to address those violations. Id. at 1334. In Coleman, a
plurality of the Supreme Court found the self-care provision at issue in the present
case, 26 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D), was not well-tailored to address a pattern of
constitutional violations and, therefore, was an invalid abrogation of the States’
sovereign immunity.1 Id. at 1338.
Plaintiff argues, however, that Louisiana has elected to waive its sovereign
immunity by virtue of Article 12 § 10(A) of its Constitution, which states:
No immunity in contract or tort. Neither the state, nor a state agency,
nor a political subdivision shall be immune from suit and liability in
contract or for injury to person or property. [Emphasis added].
Holliday asserts the employment relationship required for claims under the
FMLA is essentially a contract, and, therefore, the State’s sovereign immunity is
waived in this case. However, La. Const. art. 12 § 10(A) does not waive or cede
1
Justice Scalia, concurring in the plurality’s judgment, would further limit Congress’s power
under § 5 “to the regulation of conduct that itself violates the Fourteenth Amendment.” Coleman
at 1338.
2
Louisiana’s sovereign immunity in the federal system to unlimited Congressional
power over State contracts. Nor does this constitutional provision evidence a
waiver of sovereign immunity for the purposes of the FMLA’s self-care provision
as contemplated by Coleman. Justice Kennedy, in his opinion announcing the
judgment of the Court in Coleman, stated, “If the State agrees with petitioner that
damages liability for violations of the self-care provision is necessary to combat
discrimination against women, the State may waive its immunity or create a
parallel state law cause of action.” Coleman at 1337-8. Notably, the state at issue in
the Coleman case, Maryland, already had provisions in place similar to Louisiana’s
waiving immunity from suit in contract and tort. Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 12-
104, 201.
The Court in Coleman forcefully reiterated the States' sovereignty in the
federal system with respect to the limitations on Congress's authority to control the
operations of the States. Indeed, if this suit had been brought in federal court, it
would have been dismissed with prejudice. See Paulin v. Dept. of Health and
Hospitals, CIV.A. 13-5447, 2013 WL 6405021 at 2 (E.D. La. Dec. 9, 2014)
(dismissing FMLA self-care claim for monetary relief in light of Coleman), Colvin
v. Bd. of Sup’rs of Univ. of Louisiana, 12-1829, 2014 WL 108919 at 2 (W.D. La.
Jan. 9, 2014) (granting Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing FMLA claims in
light of Coleman).
While Louisiana may have waived sovereign immunity with respect to
some claims, La. Const. art. 1 § 26 makes it clear the State has not waived its
sovereignty within the federal system. To the contrary:
The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing
themselves as a free and sovereign state; and do, and forever hereafter
shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right,
pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them
3
expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress
assembled.
We find the trial court erred as a matter of law in determining the State had elected
to waive its sovereign immunity for purposes of the FMLA by virtue of La. Const.
art. 12 § 10(A). The judgment of the trial court is reversed. In accordance with La.
C.C.P. art. 934, plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend her petition to state
a valid cause of action if she can.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed. We
hereby grant defendant’s Exception of No Cause of Action. This matter is
remanded to district court to allow the plaintiff the opportunity to amend her
petition to state a valid cause of action if she can.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
4