Autio v. State of Minnesota

• Decision Date: 02 July 1997
• Docket Number: Civil No. 3-96-383.
• Citation: 968 F.Supp. 1366
• Parties: Jock Orville AUTIO, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MINNESOTA and AFSCME Local 3139, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

968 F.Supp. 1366

Jock Orville AUTIO, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MINNESOTA and AFSCME Local 3139, Defendants.

Civil No. 3-96-383.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division.

July 2, 1997.

Steven E. Rau, Rau & Floyd, Minneapolis, MN, for Jock Orville Autio.

Robert Michael Small, U.S. Atty. Office, Minneapolis, MN, Joan A. Magagna, John L. Wodatch, Jeanine M. Warden, Washington, DC, for U.S.

Gregg M. Corwin, Karin E. Peterson, Corwin Law Office, St. Louis Park, MN, for AFSCME, Local 3139.

Steve W. Gunn, Melissa L. Wright, Minn. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, MN, for State of Minnesota.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MAGNUSON, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant State of Minnesota's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Defendant's motion.

BACKGROUND

In October 1984, Plaintiff Jock Orville Autio ("Autio") began his employment with Defendant State of Minnesota (the "State") as a store clerk at the Central Store for the Materials Management Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration. Autio is a member of Defendant AFSCME Local 3139 (the "Union"). Due to a physical condition, Autio sought an accommodation from the State, which was not provided. Likewise, his request for assistance from the Union was unavailing. Without reasonable accommodation, Autio's employment duties aggravated his physical condition, resulting in injury.

Autio then brought suit alleging unlawful employment practices in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA" or "Act"), the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act. The State now brings this motion to dismiss all of Autio's claims.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

For the purposes of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court takes all facts alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint as true. See Westcott v. Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir.1990). Further, the Court must construe the allegations in the Complaint and reasonable inferences arising from the Complaint favorably to Plaintiff. See Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir.1986). A motion to dismiss will be granted only if "it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief." Id.; see Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). The Court reviews the present motion with these standards in mind.

DISCUSSION

In support of its motion, the State argues that Autio's claims under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-213, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Specifically, the State argues that the ADA claims against it must be dismissed because the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity has been neither waived nor lawfully abrogated by Congress. Moreover, once the ADA claims are dismissed, Autio's remaining state law claims, standing alone, fail for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). For the purposes of this motion, the parties and the Court accept the State's position with respect to waiver. The Court, however, rejects the State's contention that Congress has failed to constitutionally abrogate the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit brought under the ADA.

The Eleventh Amendment provides: "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. The Supreme Court has held that the Eleventh Amendment proscribes federal actions against states unless consent to suit is "unequivocally expressed." Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99, 104 S.Ct. 900, 907, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (hereinafter, "Pennhurst II"). In addition, "Congress has power with respect to the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity...." Id. (citing Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976)). In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996), the Supreme Court outlined the two-level inquiry to be used for determining whether immunity has been waived through congressional abrogation:

In order to determine whether Congress has abrogated the States' sovereign immunity, we ask two questions: first, whether Congress has "unequivocally expresse[d] its intent to abrogate the immunity," and second, whether Congress has acted "pursuant to a valid exercise of power."

Id. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 1123 (quoting Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 68, 106 S.Ct. 423, 425-26, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985)).

With regard to the first question, the Supreme Court has discussed the requisite level of specificity for determining whether Congress has indicated its intent to abrogate the States' immunity. In Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, the Court emphasized the importance of Eleventh Amendment immunity and the caution with which issues of abrogation of that immunity should be approached. 473 U.S. 234, 242, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3147, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985). The Court stated that its "`reluctance to infer that a State's immunity from suit in the federal courts has been negated stems from recognition of the vital role of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in our federal system.'" Id. (quoting Pennhurst II, 465 U.S. at 99, 104 S.Ct. at 907). In light of the seriousness afforded Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court held that "Congress must express its intention to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment in unmistakable language in the statute itself" Id. at 243, 105 S.Ct. at 3148.

The State concedes, and the Court agrees, that in the text of the ADA, Congress adequately expressed its intent to abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 452 (9th Cir.1996); Mayer v. University of Minnesota, 940 F.Supp. 1474, 1477 (D.Minn.1996). In particular, the ADA provides:

A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter. In any action against a State for a violation of the requirements of this chapter, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in an action against any public or private entity other than a State.

42 U.S.C. § 12202. The Court finds that this language is sufficiently explicit to satisfy the first-level inquiry outlined in Seminole Tribe.

It is at the second part of the Seminole Tribe inquiry — whether Congress has acted pursuant to a valid exercise of its power — that the State presses its objections to suit in the instant action. By overruling the plurality opinion in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 105 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989), the Seminole Tribe Court unequivocally held that the only recognized authority for congressional abrogation of the States' immunity is section five of the Fourteenth Amendment. ___ U.S. at ___ _ ___, 116 S.Ct. at 1131-32. Thus, the issue before this Court is whether Congress enacted the ADA pursuant to a valid exercise of its enforcement powers in section five of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State argues that Autio's claims against it, arising under Title I of the ADA which deals with employment discrimination, cannot survive since (1) Congress did not sufficiently invoke the Fourteenth Amendment in adopting Title I, and (2) the enactment of Title I was not a proper exercise of Congress's power under section five of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court addresses each argument in turn.

First, contrary to the State's assertions, Congress need not expressly articulate its intent to legislate under section five for its actions to be constitutionally valid. In EEOC v. Wyoming, the Court stated

It is in the nature of our review of congressional legislation defended on the basis of Congress's powers under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment that we be able to discern some legislative purpose or factual predicate that supports the exercise of that power. That does not mean, however, that Congress need anywhere recite the words "section 5" or "Fourteenth Amendment" or "equal protection" for "[t]he ... constitutionality of action taken by Congress does not depend on recitals of the power which it undertakes to exercise."

460 U.S. 226, 243 n. 18, 103 S.Ct. 1054, 1064 n. 18, 75 L.Ed.2d 18 (1983) (citing Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 476-78, 100 S.Ct. 2758, 2773-75, 65 L.Ed.2d 902 (1980); quoting Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co., 333 U.S. 138, 144, 68 S.Ct. 421, 424, 92 L.Ed. 596 (1948)). Even if there was such a requirement, it would have been fully satisfied here since Congress unmistakably articulated the constitutional basis for the enactment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(4) ("It is the purpose of this chapter ... to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment ... in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities."). Moreover, the State misplaces its reliance on Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981) (hereinafter, "Pennhurst I"), for the proposition that Congress must use unmistakably explicit language in expressing its intent to nullify the States' immunity. Since that decision, the High Court has noted that its

task in [Pennhurst I] was to construe a statute, not to adjudge its constitutional validity.... The rule of statutory construction invoked in Pennhurst was, like all rules of statutory construction, a tool with which to divine the meaning of otherwise ambiguous statutory intent Here, there is no doubt what the intent of Congress was.... The observations in Pennh...