Larkins v. Department of Mental Health

• Decision Date: 08 June 2001
• Citation: 806 So.2d 358
• Parties: Wallace M. LARKINS v. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

806 So.2d 358

Wallace M. LARKINS v. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION.

1991538.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 8, 2001.

Jay Lewis, Montgomery, for appellant.

Claudia C. Kennedy, Bureau of Legal Services, Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.

LYONS, Justice.

Wallace M. Larkins sued his employer, the State Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation ("the Department"), in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, alleging that the Department had violated 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (the "USERRA"). That Act deals with the right of a person in the military service to be reemployed at his or her civilian job upon the completion of military service. The district court dismissed Larkins's complaint for want of jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. § 4323(b).¹

Larkins refiled his claims against the Department in the Montgomery Circuit Court. He alleged that the Department, in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 4311, had retaliated against him because he had made complaints of discriminatory treatment, and he alleged that the Department, in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 4313, had failed to accommodate him after he was injured during military service. Larkins and the Department each moved for a summary judgment. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the Department, relying on Monroe v. Standard Oil Co., 452 U.S. 549, 101 S.Ct. 2510, 69 L.Ed.2d 226 (1981). Larkins appealed. We conclude that, under Article I, § 14, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, the Department is immune from suit in a State court based on Larkins's claims. Thus, we affirm the summary judgment in favor of the Department.

Larkins had been employed as a mental-health police officer at the J.S. Tarwater Developmental Center ("Tarwater"), which is owned and operated by the Department.² In 1994, Larkins, as a member of the United States Air Force Reserve, injured his foot while attending a two-week training camp at Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas. The injury was classified by the Air Force as occurring "in the line of duty." Larkins later, upon release from his military duty, returned to his position at Tarwater.

As a mental-health police officer, Larkins was required to conduct regular foot patrols of the grounds, to pursue fleeing patients, and to carry out many other ambulatory responsibilities. Upon his return to Tarwater, Larkins continued to have problems with his injured foot. He asked to use his accumulated sick leave and annual leave, to begin on July 25, 1994. The Department granted Larkins's request. Larkins later obtained permission to take an additional leave of absence without pay, from September 17, 1994, through March 24, 1995, because of the injury to his foot. On October 17, 1995, Larkins again requested a leave of absence without pay. The Department granted his request, and Larkins did not return until March 30, 1996. During these leave periods, Larkins requested that the Department accommodate him by giving him a light-duty assignment, but the Department repeatedly denied his requests.

Larkins argues that the Department was obligated to accommodate him because of his injury, either by assigning him to a light-duty position or by transferring him to a position that did not require physical exertion beyond his temporary medical limitations. Also, Larkins claims that the Department retaliated against him by lowering his evaluation score, an action he says ultimately caused him to lose a two-step pay increase. Specifically, Larkins argues that the Department violated his rights under 38 U.S.C. §§ 4311 and 4313(a)(3).

The Department argues, however, that Monroe v. Standard Oil Co., supra, the case the trial court relied on in entering the summary judgment in favor of the Department, states that the legislative history of the USERRA strongly suggests Congress did not intend for employers to provide special benefits—benefits not generally made available to other employees —to employees who are also in the military reserve. In addition, the Department claims that the legislative history of the USERRA makes it "abundantly clear that [the Act's] purpose ... was to protect employee reservists from discharge, denial of promotional opportunities, or other comparable adverse treatment" because of military obligations, and that it does not suggest that the USERRA provides preferential treatment. Finally, the Department argues that under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution it is immune from "suit in federal court brought by private citizens," citing Velasquez v. Frapwell, 165 F.3d 593 (7th Cir.1999), and Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996).

This case presents an attempt by a private citizen to sue the State of Alabama in a state court based upon rights created by an act of Congress. The Department has belatedly³ and awkwardly asserted its immunity from suit, by alleging in its brief before this Court that, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, it is immune from "suit in federal court brought by private citizens." (Emphasis added.) Of course, if this action was pending in a federal court, it would not be within our jurisdiction.

Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence, however, as it bears upon Congress's authority to subject a State to suit, is not wholly irrelevant to our analysis. In Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999), the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, discussed the immunity of a State from suit in its own courts based upon acts of Congress:

"The Eleventh Amendment makes explicit reference to the States' immunity from suits `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., Amdt. 11. We have, as a result, sometimes referred to the States' immunity from suit as `Eleventh Amendment immunity.' The phrase is convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, for the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from, nor is limited by, the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution's structure, its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.

"Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document `specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities.' Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, [517 U.S. 44 at 71 n. 15, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) ]; accord, Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 779 [111 S.Ct. 2578, 115 L.Ed.2d 686] (1991) (`[T]he States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact'). Various textual provisions of the Constitution assume the States' continued existence and active participation in the fundamental processes of governance. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 919 [117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914] (1997) (citing Art. III, § 2; Art. IV, §§ 2-4; Art. V). The limited and enumerated powers granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the National Government, moreover, underscore the vital role reserved to the States by the constitutional design, see, e.g., Art. I, § 8; Art. II, §§ 2-3; Art. III, § 2. Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: `The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' U.S. Const., Amdt. 10; see also Printz, supra, at 919 ; New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 156-159, 177 [112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120] (1992)."

527 U.S. at 712-14, 119 S.Ct. 2240 (emphasis added).

The Court in Alden rejected the contention that powers conferred upon Congress by Article I, including the authority for carrying into execution such powers by making all laws "necessary and proper" (Art. I, § 8, last paragraph), could be construed as overriding the sovereignty of a State. Justice Kennedy stated:

"The Constitution, by delegating to Congress the power to establish the supreme law of the land when acting within its enumerated powers, does not foreclose a State from asserting immunity to claims arising under federal law merely because that law derives not from the State itself but from the national power. A contrary view could not be reconciled with Hans [v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890) ], which sustained Louisiana's immunity in a private suit arising under the Constitution itself; with Employees of Dept. of Public Health and Welfare of Mo. v. Department of Public Health and Welfare of Mo., 411 U.S. 279, 283 [93 S.Ct. 1614, 36 L.Ed.2d 251] (1973), which recognized that the FLSA was binding upon Missouri but nevertheless upheld the State's immunity to a private suit to recover under that Act; or with numerous other decisions to the same effect. We reject any contention that substantive federal law by its own force necessarily overrides the sovereign immunity of the States. When a State asserts its immunity to suit, the question is not the primacy of federal law but the implementation of the law in a manner consistent with the constitutional sovereignty of the States.

"Nor can we

...