Emberg v. University of Maryland University College Asian Division

Citations: 3 F. Supp. 2d 1127; 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5750; 1998 WL 198987Docket: CIV. 97-01039DAE

Court: District Court, D. Hawaii; April 17, 1998; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case of B.J. Emberg and D.H. Emberg v. University of Maryland University College Asian Division. The Plaintiffs, both employed by the Defendant, were injured in a 1994 accident on Kwajalein Island, resulting in serious health issues and subsequent work-related claims for benefits that remained unresolved. The Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment regarding their entitlement to Defense Base Act coverage and legal damages. 

The Defendant argued for dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, asserting that it is protected from being sued in federal court. The Plaintiffs countered that the Asian Division is not an arm of the State of Maryland, thus not entitled to sovereign immunity protections. The court referenced case law establishing that states and their agencies cannot be sued in federal court without consent and concluded that the Plaintiffs' claims were barred under the Eleventh Amendment, resulting in the dismissal of the case.

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant does not qualify as an arm of the State of Maryland and therefore lacks Eleventh Amendment immunity, arguing that the Asian Division of the University College operates independently and is self-supporting without state or federal funding. The Ninth Circuit's Hale v. State of Arizona sets a test for determining if an agency is an arm of the state, which includes assessing whether state funds would satisfy a monetary judgment, the entity's governmental functions, its legal capacity to sue or be sued, and its property rights. Defendant asserts that the University College is a constituent institution of the University System of Maryland, governed by the Board of Regents, and is established under Maryland Education Code. The statute indicates that the University College, including its overseas divisions, is part of the state system, required to submit financial statements and operate under state law. The Asian Division does not have independent corporate status and cannot act without the University College's authority. Maryland law designates employees of overseas programs of the University College as state personnel, granting them immunity under the Maryland Tort Claims Act while acting in their official capacities. Thus, Plaintiffs were considered state employees during their employment at the Asian Division, reinforcing Defendant's claim to immunity.

Plaintiffs assert that the Asian Division of the University of Maryland University College operates as a "self-supporting" entity without state or federal funding. Defendant counters this claim by referencing budgetary records indicating state appropriations were made for the division in 1992 but not in 1993 or 1994. While the University College may not consistently receive state funding, Defendant attributes this to budget constraints rather than a change in the institution's status. The evaluation of Eleventh Amendment immunity hinges on whether a judgment against the agency would financially impact the state. If such a judgment would deplete state treasury funds, the agency likely qualifies for immunity.

Plaintiffs argue that any judgment against the Asian Division would be covered by its contract proceeds with the U.S. government, yet they provide insufficient evidence to support this claim, relying solely on a faculty handbook stating the division is "self-supporting." The court must consider state law, which protects both the employees and the programs of the University College under sovereign immunity. The University College, established through state statute, operates under legislative authority, and its budget is subject to state review annually.

The overseas program, an extension of the University College, utilizes resources purchased by the College, not the individual program. The University College serves a central government function to improve public higher education, reflecting its integration into the state's system. The Maryland Annotated Code mandates that the state Treasurer provide self-insurance or insurance coverage for the state's entities under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, further solidifying the state's financial responsibility for liabilities incurred by the University College and its programs.

The University Maryland University College, including its overseas Asian Division, is protected by the Eleventh Amendment, which grants sovereign immunity to states. This immunity persists despite funding sources like tuition and federal contracts. Congress can abrogate this immunity through clear and unequivocal language in federal statutes; however, neither the Declaratory Judgment Act nor the Defense Base Act contains such language. Consequently, immunity remains intact, protecting the Defendant from federal court suits. 

Plaintiffs argue for an exception to this immunity based on Ex Parte Young, which allows for lawsuits against state officials for future violations of federal law. While this exception permits prospective injunctive relief, it does not allow for retroactive monetary compensation for past actions. Therefore, merely seeking injunctive relief does not guarantee a plaintiff can bypass the Eleventh Amendment protections.

The Supreme Court distinguishes between retrospective and prospective relief, noting that relief aimed at compensating past injuries caused by state officials' illegal actions under federal law is generally prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. In this case, the plaintiffs sued an entity of the State of Maryland without naming specific state officials, which is insufficient for an exception to this prohibition. Since a state or its agencies cannot be sued in federal court for damages or equitable relief, the plaintiffs' claims cannot be considered valid under the Eleventh Amendment, leading to the dismissal of their complaint in its entirety. The court expressed sympathy for the plaintiffs' situation, acknowledging that if the defendant is indeed an arm of the state, they may have limited recovery options. However, the court clarified that the issue of coverage is not currently before them. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice, allowing for the possibility of future claims. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss based on the Eleventh Amendment.