Moad v. Arkansas State Police Dept.
Citation | 111 F.3d 585 |
Decision Date | 15 April 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 96-2594,96-2594 |
Parties | 133 Lab.Cas. P 33,521, 3 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1540 Delbert D. MOAD, on Behalf of Self and all Others Similarly Situated; Joe M. Martz, on Behalf of Self and all Others Similarly Situated; Dennis Gifford, on Behalf of Self and all Others Similarly Situated; Carroll Seaton, on Behalf of Self and all Others Similarly Situated; and Jody S. Garner, B.R. Skipper, James Myron Hall, Jefery A. Ramsey, Donald H. Sims, R.W. Neel, James H. Kelloms, Ronald L. Welch, Galey Gates, Don Smith, Charles A. Hefner, Don W. Browning, Alex Sylvester, Jerry H. Chancellor, Bobby Carlton, Andrew Clay, Ralph J. Lobbs, Robert Mark Batson, Wendell W. Adams, Gene Hicks, William T. Cochran, Jerry W. White, Mitchell E. Carolan, Darrell W. Lainhart, Glenn O. Maxwell, Edward L. Davis, Tommy L. Morrow, James T. Linkous, David M. Fullen, Gordon Ray Diffee, Vernon R. Dollar, Scotty Dodd, Robert L. Meek, Duvall W. Moore, Ron Ball, R.L. Newton, Howard Smith, Tate G. Floyd, III, A.J. McElroy, Lyle R. Smith, Joe Roberson, Martha Williams, Jackie Hopkins, Lloyd Martz, Mack Thompson, Dudley Lemon, Kelly Watkins, Barry Spivey, Larry Lassiter, Michael Springer, Andrew Wiley, Donald Brown, Don Lafarlette, Paul Halley, Tim Land, David Hathcoat, Charles Watson, Dennis Morris, Kevin Richmond, Olen Craig, Michael Linville, Joe F. Bradshaw, Roger Whitmore, Doug Stark, Phillip Glasgow, Harvey George, Victor Coleman, Hayes Hogue, Dennis Duran, Melvin Hensley, James M. Sullivan, Jerry D. Willis, Carey J. Lovaas, and Jerry L. Watts, Appellants, v. ARKANSAS STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Also Known as Arkansas State Police, Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
John Belew, Batesville, Arkansas, argued for Appellants (M. Michael Kinnard, Harvey L. Bell, and Steve R. Crane, on the brief).
Rick D. Hogan, Little Rock, Arkansas, argued for Appellee (Leagh Ann Yeargan, on the brief).
Before LOKEN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and GUNN, 1 District Judge.
The plaintiffs are Arkansas state troopers who are seeking compensation for unpaid overtime. They sued, alleging that the state of Arkansas violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Relying on Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996), the district court dismissed the troopers' case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The troopers appeal. We affirm the judgment of the district court. 2
The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution provides that the "Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. Const. amend. XI. "Although the text of the amendment speaks only of suits against a state by persons who are not citizens of that state, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Eleventh Amendment to extend to suits by all persons against a state in federal court." Mancuso v. New York State Thruway Auth., 86 F.3d 289, 292 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 481, 136 L.Ed.2d 375 (1996). According to Seminole Tribe, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1131-32, "[t]he Eleventh Amendment restricts the judicial power under Article III, and Article I [ ] cannot be used to circumvent the constitutional limitations placed upon federal jurisdiction."
Until 1996, the Supreme Court had held that Congress had the authority to abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity under two constitutional provisions: the Fourteenth Amendment, see Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 2671, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976), and the Interstate Commerce Clause, see Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 23, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 2286, 105 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (plurality opinion). In Seminole Tribe, --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1133, however, the Court held that a statute requiring a state to enter into mediation enacted under the Indian Commerce Clause could not validly authorize a lawsuit against a state by an individual. The Court also explicitly overruled Union Gas. See id., --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1128. In the case before us, the state troopers are making precisely the same argument that was made in Union Gas, namely, that Congress had the power to abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Clause. By overruling Union Gas in Seminole Tribe, however, the Supreme Court has now explicitly rejected that argument.
The state troopers contend in the alternative that the FLSA could have been enacted pursuant to Congress's power under the Fourteenth Amendment because their exclusion from the ability to sue in federal court for the protections afforded by the FLSA violates their right to equal protection. This issue was not raised in the district court and was raised in our court only in the troopers' reply brief. Under these circumstances, we decline to consider the issue of whether the FLSA could have been enacted under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., 486 U.S. 888, 895, 108 S.Ct. 2218, 2222-23, 100 L.Ed.2d 896 (1988).
The state troopers also contend that prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Seminole Tribe, the state of Arkansas allowed itself to be sued pursuant to the FLSA and that this evidences a waiver by the state of its Eleventh Amendment immunity. We have examined the record carefully and we find no evidence that this issue was ever raised in the district court with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Children's Healthcare Is A Legal Duty, Inc. v. Min De Parle, NANCY-ANN
... ... Medicaid is jointly financed by the federal and state governments and is administered by the states, which must ... See Moad v. Arkansas State Police Dep't, 111 F.3d 585, 587 (8th Cir ... ...
-
Aaron v. State of Kan., s. 96-3095
... ... See Moad v. Arkansas St. Police Dep't, 111 F.3d 585, 587 (8th Cir.1997); ... ...
-
Jacoby v. Arkansas Dept. of Educ., Vocation and Technical Educ. Div.
... ... Their complaint is based on an allegation that the State, through the Department, has failed to pay them for all of the time they have worked ... New York, 125 F.3d 31 (2nd Cir.1997); Mills v. Maine, 118 F.3d 37 (1st Cir.1997); Moad v. Arkansas State Police Dept., 111 F.3d 585 (8th Cir.1997). We agree that Seminole Tribe v ... ...
- Norris v. Mo. Dep't of Corr.