State v. University of Arkansas Bd. of Trustees
| Decision Date | 14 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--3939,5--3939 |
| Citation | 241 Ark. 399,407 S.W.2d 916 |
| Parties | , 54 Lab.Cas. P 51,585 STATE of Arkansas, Bill Laney, Comm. of Labor etc., Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS BOARD OF TRUSTEES etc., Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Curtis E. Rickard, Department of Labor, Little Rock, for appellant.
Owens, McHaney & McHaney, Little Rock, for appellee.
The decisive question is whether the Commissioner of Labor of the State of Arkansas can successfully sue the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas, in the teeth of the Constitutional Provision (Art. 5, Sec. 20), which reads: 'The State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts.' The Chancery Court held that the suit could not be maintained; and we affirm that holding.
The University of Arkansas maintains a food service at Fayetteville and employs a number of persons, among whom are 68 women, for whose benefit the present suit was filed. In August 1965 Bill Laney, as Commissioner of Labor of the State of Arkansas, filed this suit, naming as defendant, 'University of Arkansas Board of Trustees, d/b/a University of Arkansas and University Food Service.' The complaint alleged that the 68 named women, working for the University Food Service, had been required to work in excess of eight hours per day and had not received overtime pay, as required by Ark.Stat.Ann. § 81--613 et seq. (Repl.1960). The prayer of the complaint was:
'Wherefore, plaintiff prays that said defendant, its agents, servants and employees, be temporarily restrained and enjoined from working plaintiffs in violation of the labor laws of Arkansas, and more particularly Ark.Stat.Ann. § 81--601 (Repl.1960); that upon final hearing this injunction be made permanent in effect, that defendant be required to compensate plaintiffs for their labor and penalized according to law, for all cost and other proper relief.'
The defendant Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas, after first unsuccessfully objecting to venue (and we do not pass on that issue), then pleaded that the suit against the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas was a suit against the State and could not be maintained because of the language of Art. 5, Sec. 20 of the Arkansas Constitution, as previously quoted. From the ruling of the Chancery Court sustaining such plea, the Commissioner of Labor brings this appeal.
In the light of the holding of the United States Supreme Court in State of Arkansas v. State of Texas, 1 we hold that this suit against the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees is a suit against the State. In the cited case, Arkansas sued Texas in the United States Supreme Court. It was alleged that the Wm. Buchanan Foundation had made a contract with the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas, and that the State of Texas was interfering with the contract. The basis of the jurisdiction was because of Art. 3, Sec. 2 of the United States Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court of the United States jurisdiction of suits between States. Texas denied the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court, claiming that the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kenney v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ark.
...Ark. for Med Sciences v. Adams, 117 S.W.3d 588, 590 (Ark. 2003); Grine v. Bd. of Trustees, 2 S.W.3d 54, 59 (Ark. 1999); Laney v. Univ. of Ark., 407 S.W.2d 916 (Ark. 1966). Accordingly, the University is immune from suit except when Congress has validly abrogated the State's sovereign immuni......
-
Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews
...violations of the AMWA, and this court has held that the Board is an instrumentality of the State. State Comm'r of Labor v.Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Trs. , 241 Ark. 399, 407 S.W.2d 916 (1966). However, the Board contends that this statutorily created waiver violates the Arkansas Constitution. Th......
-
Thacker v. Board of Trustees of Ohio State University
...of the Univ. of Alabama (1971), 288 Ala. 20, 256 So.3d 281.Arkansas: Section 20, Article 5; State Commr. of Labor v. Univ. of Arkansas Bd. of Trustees (1966), 241 Ark. 399, 407 S.W.2d 916.Connecticut: Section 4, Article II; Baker v. Ives (1972), 162 Conn. 295, 294 A.2d 290. But, see Section......
-
Atu et al v. Link et al
...of a state university is a suit against the State, and is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. State Comm'r of Labor v. University of Ark., 241 Ark. 399, 407 S.W.2d 916 (1966). Specifically, ATU and the Board argue that this suit by the appellees is essentially a breach-of-contract......