Opinion
Case No. 4:04cv144-SPM/AK.
December 30, 2004
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL
Pending before the Court is the motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings (doc. 10) filed by Defendant Florida State University School (FSUS). Although Plaintiff's failure to respond provides sufficient cause to grant the motion under Northern District of Florida 7.1(C)(1), a review of the motion on the merits shows that dismissal with prejudice of the claims against FSUS, except for the claims under Title VII, is warranted on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds.
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges among other things that FSUS engaged in unlawful employment discrimination. Her complaint includes federal statutory claims against FSUS under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1981, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint also includes claims under state law for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
I. Eleventh Amendment Immunity
"The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction in suits brought against a state by a citizen of that state." Schopler v. Bliss, 903 F.2d 1373, 1378 (11th Cir. 1990). The resulting immunity from suit in federal court extends not only to states when named as a party to an action, but also to state agencies acting under the state's control. Id.; P.R. Aqueduct Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993).
The immunity may be waived by the United States through a valid exercise of congressional authority. Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 78-80 (2000). Such a waiver has been effected for claims under Title VII. Fitxpatrick v. Blitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976); Allen v. Ala. State Bd. of Educ., 816 F.2d 575, 577 (11th Cir. 1987). No waiver has been effected, however, for claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1981. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979) (concerning § 1983); Sessions v. Rusk State Hospital, 648 F.2d 1066, 1069 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981) (concerning § 1981). Claims against the state brought under state law are also barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Pennhurst State Sch. and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984).
Immunity may also be waived by the state through its own legislation, but only "by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction." Fla. Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs v. Fla. Nursing Home Ass'n., 450 U.S. 147, 150 (1981) (quoting Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 615, 673 (1974)). Florida has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by enacting Section 768.28, Florida Statues. Hill v. Dep't of Corrections, 513 So.2d 129, 131-33 (Fla. 1987) (holding that Section 768.28 constitutes a limited waiver of Florida's sovereign immunity that does not extend to Eleventh Amendment immunity), holding limited, Howlett ex rel. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990). Although Section 768.28 expressly waives Florida's sovereign immunity for actions brought in its own courts, it does not waive Florida's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. Id.; Schopler, 903 F.2d at 1379.
In determining whether FSUS is a state agency covered by Eleventh Amendment immunity, several factors should be examined. These are "(1) how state law defines the entity; (2) what degree of control the state maintains over the entity; (3) where the entity derives its funds; and (4) who is responsible for judgments against the entity." Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Fla. State Athletic Comm'n, 226 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2000). A review of these factors shows that FSUS is a state agency.
First, FSUS is a developmental research school that is sponsored by and affiliated with the college of education at Florida State University, which is a state agency under Florida law. §§ 1002.32(2), 1001.72(1), (3), and (5), Fla. Stat. Second, the state maintains control over FSUS because in contrast to regular public schools, which are operated under the control of district school boards, Florida State University operates and controls FSUS. § 1004.04, Fla. Stat. Third, FSUS derives its funds from the state. § 1002.32(9), Fla. Stat. Finally, the state maintains responsibility for payment of FSUS's litigation expenses and judgments pursuant to the Florida Risk Management Trust Fund, § 284.30, Fla. Stat., and through appropriations made by state law, § 11.066, Fla. Stat. See Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla., 226 F.3d at 1234.
Based on the forgoing, the Court finds that FSUS is a state agency that is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Accordingly, the claims against FSUS, with the exception of the Title VII claim for which immunity has been waived by Congress, will be dismissed.
II. Title VII Claims
On Plaintiff's Title VII claims, FSUS makes two arguments for dismissal. First, FSUS argues that Plaintiff's Title VII claims should be dismissed to the extent they seeks punitive damages. Second, FSUS argues that Plaintiff's amended complaint should be dismissed because it improperly incorporates allegations by reference into every count.
With regard to punitive damages, Title VII does not allow for the imposition of punitive damages against a "government, government agency, or political subdivision." 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1); Biggs, 1998 WL 344349, *2, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D. 777 (N.D. Fla. July 11, 1998). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages under Title VII must be dismissed.
With regard to the set of general allegations incorporated by reference into all counts of the complaint, the practice is disfavored. Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville v. FPL Group, Inc., 162 F.3d 1290, 1332-33 (11th Cir. 1998). Although the Court recognizes that there is some factual overlap among Plaintiff's various claims, not all of the allegations are pertinent to all claims and more care should be taken to incorporate only those allegations that are pertinent to each claim. Id. Based on the forgoing, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. All of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant FSUS are dismissed.
2. The dismissal is with prejudice as to Plaintiff's claims against FSUS under §§ 1983 and 1981, and for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation
3. The dismissal is without prejudice as to Plaintiff's Title VII claims against Defendant FSUS.
4. Plaintiff shall have up to and including January 10, 2005 to file a second amended complaint that cures the deficiencies noted.
DONE AND ORDERED.