Fikse v. State of Iowa Third Judicial District
| Decision Date | 02 July 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. C 08-4071-MWB.,C 08-4071-MWB. |
| Citation | 633 F.Supp.2d 682 |
| Parties | Lyle FIKSE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF IOWA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES and Linn Hall, in his Official Capacity as Director Of State Of Iowa Third Judicial District Department of Corrections Services, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Jay Elliott Denne, Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.
Forrest Arthur Guddall, Department of Justice, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 684
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................ 686
A. Standards For A Motion To Dismiss .................................. 686
B. The 3rd JDDOCS's Motion To Dismiss ................................. 687
1. Eleventh Amendment immunity to ADEA claims ...................... 687
2. Waiver by accepting federal funds ............................... 688
C. Hall's Motion To Dismiss ........................................... 690
1. Injunctive relief against a state official ...................... 691
2. Adequacy of the pleading of the claim against Hall .............. 693
III. CONCLUSION ............................................................ 694
Can a state agency and its director, sued in his official capacity, raise Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity to an agency employee's claims for damages and injunctive relief from age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination In Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.? The defendants have moved to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment and other grounds, but the plaintiff contends that his suit is viable against the agency, because the agency receives federal funding, and against the agency's director, because the complaint adequately alleges a claim for injunctive relief from imminent or ongoing violations of rights under the ADEA. The court's resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss is, admittedly, overdue.1
On August 19, 2008, plaintiff Lyle Fikse filed his original Complaint (docket no. 1) against defendant State of Iowa Third Judicial District Department Of Correctional Services (3rd JDDOCS) alleging age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. Somewhat more specifically, Fikse alleges that he was and continues to be employed by the 3rd JDDOCS as a residential officer at the Sheldon Residential Treatment Facility in Sheldon, Iowa; that he is over forty years of age; that he has repeatedly sought and been denied promotions to the position of probation officer; and that younger workers have been promoted instead, despite his experience, good performance reviews, and seniority. Therefore, Fikse alleges willful age discrimination by the 3rd JDDOCS in violation of the ADEA, and seeks back pay and benefits, front pay and benefits, training, promotions, and seniority; damages for past and future suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses; liquidated damages for willful discrimination; costs, expenses, and attorney fees; and such other relief as the court deems proper.
On October 23, 2008, the 3rd JDDOCS filed a Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 4), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that Fikse's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because his ADEA claim is barred by the 3rd JDDOCS's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Fikse filed a Resistance (docket no. 7) to that motion on November 18, 2008, arguing that the 3rd JDDOCS waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by accepting federal funding, citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(1) and Jim C. v. United States, 235 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir.2000), and, in the alternative, asserting that his case should not be dismissed in its entirety, because of his soon-to-be-filed motion to amend his Complaint to assert a claim for injunctive relief against the director of the 3rd JDDOCS in his official capacity.
Fikse did, in fact, file a Motion To Amend Complaint (docket no. 10) on November 21, 2008, seeking to add as an additional defendant Linn Hall, in his official capacity as the director of the State of Iowa Third Judicial District Department of Correctional Services. By Order (docket no. 14) dated December 5, 2008, the court granted Fikse's Motion To Amend, and his Amended Complaint (docket no. 15) was filed that day. In addition to adding the new defendant, Fikse's Amended Complaint adds a new paragraph to his prayer asking the court to enjoin defendant Hall permanently from engaging in or continuing practices, polices, customs, and usages shown to be violative of the ADEA and requiring that Fikse be promoted to the position of probation officer.
On December 8, 2008, defendant Hall filed a Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 19), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that Fikse's Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against him upon which relief can be granted, and referring the court to the defendants' Brief In Support Of Defendants' Motion To Dismiss and Reply Brief In Support Of Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 17), filed the same day. In the reply portion of that brief, the 3rd JDDOCS asserts that 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(1) does not provide an unambiguous waiver of the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity to claims pursuant to the ADEA as the result of accepting federal funding and, in any event, that the 3rd JDDOCS has not received any federal funding in the last three years, even if § 2000d-7(a)(1) might otherwise waive sovereign immunity. In the portion of the brief supporting defendant Hall's Motion To Dismiss, defendant Hall asserts that he is not an "employer" within the meaning of the ADEA; that injunctive relief under the ADEA may not override Eleventh Amendment immunity; that, to the extent that injunctive relief may be available against a state official without violating the Eleventh Amendment, a general injunction to "follow the law" is not appropriate in the absence of an imminent or ongoing constitutional violation, which cannot be shown here; and that, even if equitable relief were otherwise available against him, in his official capacity, front pay cannot be awarded against the State, there is no current vacancy for a probation officer, and future vacancies may be subject to a hiring freeze and budget cuts.
On January 14, 2009, Fikse filed a Resistance To Defendant Linn Hall's Motion To Dismiss And Supplement To Plaintiff's Resistance To Defendant State Of Iowa Third Judicial District Department Of Correctional Services' Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 25), asserting that defendant Hall is a proper party to his lawsuit, if the 3rd JDDOCS is dismissed, that there is no Eleventh Amendment immunity bar to his claim for injunctive relief against Hall, and that his Amended Complaint does adequately allege imminent and ongoing violations of the ADEA. More specifically, he asserts that he has alleged an ongoing pattern of conduct in violation of the ADEA that has occurred and will continue to occur with each of his applications for promotion. In further support of his argument that the 3rd JDDOCS has waived sovereign immunity, Fikse argues that discovery is required to determine the extent to which federal funding to the Iowa Department of Correctional Services is, in turn, for the benefit of each judicial district's Department of Correctional Services, so that dismissal is premature.
In short, the defendants' motions to dismiss present the following questions: (1) Does the ADEA properly abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity to an age discrimination claim against a state agency? (2) If not, is an ADEA claim nevertheless permissible against a state agency pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(1) if the state agency receives federal funding, thereby waiving Eleventh Amendment immunity? (3) Can a state agency employee assert a claim for injunctive relief from violations of the ADEA against the state agency's director in his or her official capacity, notwithstanding the state agency's Eleventh Amendment immunity? and (4) Has Fikse adequately alleged a claim for injunctive relief against the state agency's director, in his official capacity? The answers to the first two questions will determine the viability of Fikse's ADEA claim against the 3rd JDDOCS, while the answers to the latter two questions will determine the viability of Fikse's ADEA claim for injunctive relief against defendant Hall. The court will consider these pairs of questions in turn. First, however, the court must consider the standards applicable to the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted.
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for a motion to dismiss on the basis of "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."2 In a recent decision, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), the Supreme Court revisited the standards for determining whether factual allegations are sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests," Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, ibid.; Sanjuan v. American Bd. of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (C.A.7 1994), a plaintiff's obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief" requires...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bass v. Univ. of Ark. At Pine Bluff
...Hasty v. Neb. Dep't of Educ., No. 4:09CV3196, 2010 WL 1552855, at *5 (D.Neb. Apr. 15, 2010); Fikse v. Iowa Third Judicial Dist. Dep't of Corr. Servs., 633 F. Supp. 2d 682, 692 (N.D. Iowa 2009); Jackson v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Sciences, No. 4:08CV04234-WRW, 2009 WL 890518, at *1-2 (E.D. Ar......
-
Newbrough v. Bishop Heelan Catholic Sch.
...2009) (finding that Title VII and the ADEA are not applicable to individuals); Fikse v. State of Iowa Third Judicial DistrictDepartment of Correctional Services, 633 F. Supp. 2d 682, 692-693 (N.D. Iowa 2009) (no individual liability under the ADEA); Smith v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 519 F......
-
Goodrich v. Lincoln Cnty. Circuit Court
...official in his official capacity for injunctive relief. Monroe, 495 F.3d at 594; see also Fikse v. State of Iowa Third Judicial Dist. Dep't of Corr. Servs., 633 F. Supp. 2d 682, 690 (N.D. Iowa 2009) (dismissing claims against a state agency, while permitting claims against state official f......
-
Buckley v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Trustees
...an order dismissing the University.Monroe v. Ark. St. Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir.2007). See also Fikse v. State of Iowa Third Jud. Dist., 633 F.Supp.2d 682, 691 (N.D.Iowa 2009) (while state officials may be sued in their official capacities for injunctive relief, the same doctrine do......