# Antonio Passaro, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 16, 2019 · 935 F.3d 243

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9889109

## Case

- **Full name:** Antonio PASSARO, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Virginia Department of State Police, Defendants - Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 16, 2019
- **Citations:** 935 F.3d 243
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Traxler
- **Judges:** Richardson, Traxler
- **Cited by:** 86 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9889109

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that Virginia’s “transactional approach” to claim preclusion did not bar former state employee’s Title VII claim for damages where the employee “could not have sought money damages” either as part of agency-level proceedings to overturn disciplinary action “or as part …
- holding that “state sovereign immunity bars all claims by private citizens against state governments and their agencies, except where Congress has validly abrogated that immunity or the state has waived it.”
- holding “state sovereign immunity bars all claims by private citizens against state governments and their agencies, except where Congress has validly abrogated that immunity or the state has waived it”
- stating that “the Supreme Court has held that Congress exceeded its authority” when it attempted to abrogate state sovereign immunity for Title I of the ADA
- holding a state waives sovereign immunity only by “a clear statement”

## Opinion text

TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in Sections I and II of the majority opinion. As to how Virginia courts would resolve the claim preclusion issue in Section III, I would certify this question to the Supreme Court of Virginia. This is not a criticism of the majority opinion. The legal route it outlines is novel, even if correct. In my view, the impact of this case will be far reaching, as there is a great deal of litigation in this area of the law. There is no Virginia case law that directly addresses the precise issue before us, and I am not entirely certain that we have reached the conclusion anticipated by the Virginia court when it promulgated Rule 1:6. If new ground is to be plowed, I believe it should be done by the Supreme Court of Virginia.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9889109. Public record. Not legal advice.