Versiglio v. Bd. of Dental Exam'r of Ala.
Decision Date | 13 July 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 10–14282.,10–14282. |
Parties | Natalie VERSIGLIO, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS OF ALABAMA, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John Bradley Medaris, Robert N. Barber, II, Barber Medaris, LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Hendon Blaylock Coody, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, and EDMONDSON and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
There is presently pending in this case a petition for rehearing filed by the Appellant Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama (the “Board”). We grant the Board's petition for rehearing, vacate our prior panel opinion in this case, issued on August 26, 2011, and published at 651 F.3d 1272, and substitute the following opinion in lieu thereof. After a recent decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, we now reverse the district court's judgment finding that the Board does not constitute an arm of the State of Alabama and is therefore not entitled to sovereign immunity from suits.
In the present case, the Board appeals the district court's judgment denying it sovereign immunity protection as an arm of the State of Alabama. Appellee Natalie Versiglio contends that the Board is sufficiently independent from the State of Alabama that it is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and that her claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act should be allowed to continue. Thus, the question before this court is whether the Board is an arm of the state and protected from suit by sovereign immunity. Based on a recent decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, Wilkinson v. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs of Ala., ––– So.3d ––––, 2012 WL 1890677 , we conclude that it is and we reverse the judgment of the district court.1
In Manders v. Lee, the Eleventh Circuit noted that “[i]t is also well-settled that Eleventh Amendment immunity bars suits brought in federal court when the State itself is sued and when an ‘arm of the State’ is sued.” 338 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir.2003). Whether an agency qualifies as an arm of the state is a federal question with a federal standard, but whether that standard is met will be determined by carefully reviewing how the agency is defined by state law. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 n. 5, 117 S.Ct. 900, 904 n. 5, 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997) () ; Tuveson v. Fla. Governor's Council on Indian Affairs, Inc., 734 F.2d 730, 732 (11th Cir.1984) (). States have “extremely wide latitude in determining their forms of government and how state functions are performed.” Abusaid v. Hillsborough Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 405 F.3d 1298, 1303 (11th Cir.2005). But if a state creates an institution in such a way that gives it independence, Williams v. Eastside Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 669 F.2d 671, 678 (11th Cir.1982). In conducting our analysis, this court “has stated the most important factor is how the entity has been treated by the state courts.” Tuveson, 734 F.2d at 732 (citing Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. v. Architectural Stone Co., 625 F.2d 22, 25 (5th Cir.1980)2).
When this court heard oral argument, the highest court in the State of Alabama to analyze the issue of whether the Board constitutes an arm of the state was the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, which found that the Board was not an arm of the state and not entitled to immunity from suit in Alabama state courts. See Wilkinson v. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs of Ala., –––So.3d ––––, ––––, 2011 WL 1205669, at *5 (Ala.Civ.App. Apr. 1, 2011), rev'd Wilkinson, ––– So.3d –––, 2012 WL 1890677. Based on this decision, we similarly held that the Board was not an arm of the state and was not entitled to immunity from suit in federal courts. See Versiglio v. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs of Ala., 651 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.2011). However, once this court became aware of the Alabama Supreme Court's decision to grant the Board's petition for a writ of certiorari, we withheld issuance of our mandate that could have resulted in the incongruous result of having a “state agency” that is immune from suit under state law but not federal law. Cf. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 793 n. 29, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 2285 n. 29, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 ( ).
On May 25, 2012, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the Board is in fact an arm of the state and is entitled to immunity from suits in Alabama state courts. Wilkinson, ––– So.3d –––.3 In so holding, the Alabama Supreme Court conclusively held Id. at ––––.
This court gives great deference to how state courts characterize the entity in question. This practice is in keeping with the ordinary deference granted state courts when they interpret matters of state concern. See Silverberg v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 710 F.2d 678, 690 (11th Cir.1983) (). Finding now that the Board is not entitled to sovereign immunity would require this court to interpret Alabama law in a way that is diametrically opposed to the findings of the highest state court to consider the issue. We decline to do so.
For the aforementioned reasons, we reverse the district court's judgment finding that the Board is not entitled to sovereign immunity protection as an arm of the State of Alabama.
REVERSED.
APPENDIX
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2011–2012
_________________________
1100993
_________________________
Ex parte Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: Mary Ann Wilkinson
v.
Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama)
(Jefferson Circuit Court, CV–10–902491;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2100175)
We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama (“the Board”) seeking review of the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals in Wilkinson v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama, [Ms. 2100175, April 1, 2011] ––– So.3d ––––, 2011 WL 1205669 (Ala.Civ.App.2011), in which the Court of Civil Appeals held that the Board was not a State agency and thus was not entitled to immunity pursuant to Art. I, § 14, Ala. Const.1901. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals.
I. Facts and Procedural History
The pertinent facts are stated in the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion in Wilkinson:
“Mary Ann Wilkinson was employed by the Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama (‘the Board’) for several years, until the Board terminated her employment in December 2009. During her tenure with the Board, Wilkinson was employed pursuant to yearly contracts. Wilkinson's employment contracts provided that the ‘sole remedy for the settlement of any and all disputes arising under the terms of this agreement shall be limited to the filing of a claim with the Board of Adjustment for the State of Alabama.’
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weaver v. Madison City Bd. of Educ. & Dr. Dee Fowler
...factor, for the federal courts to use in determining “arm of the State” status for an entity. Versiglio v. Bd. of Dental Examiners of Alabama, 686 F.3d 1290, 1292 (11th Cir.2012) (“This court gives great deference to how state courts characterize the entity in question.”). How the state cou......
-
Fdic v. Skow
...v. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs of Ala., 651 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.2011), vacated and superseded on rehearing by Versiglio v. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs of Ala., 686 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir.2012) (recognizing the practice of giving ordinary deference to state courts when they interpret matters of state conce......
-
Smith v. Ala. Dep't of Human Res. Child Support Div.
...(en banc), "remains the law of the circuit." 771 F.3d at 752 - 53. As noted by the Walker court, in Versiglio v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama, 686 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2012), a panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held: "Whether an agency qualifies as an arm of the state i......
-
Carstarphen v. Judge Robert Smith & Prosecutor Matthew Simpson
...(en banc), "remains the law of the circuit." 771 F.3d at 752 - 53. As noted by the Walker court, in Versiglio v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama, 686 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2012), a panel of the Eleventh Circuit held: "Whether an agency qualifies as an arm of the state is a federal quest......
-
Labor and Employment
...131. Id. at 1354.132. Id. at 1345 (majority opinion).133. Id. at 1338.134. Versiglio v. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs of Ala. (Versiglio II), 686 F.3d 1290, 1292-93 (11th Cir. 2012). 135. 651 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2011), vacated by Versiglio II, 686 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2012).136. 686 F.3d 1290 (11t......