thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the important work that you do it's an honor to be here today the primary issue in this case is whether the terran county workforce was involved in a car accident and in addition she developed several neurological conditions which her employer accommodated at some point herm ploy or decided to no longer accommodate her and she filed a complaint with the texas workforce commission the texas workforce commission then forwarded her complaint to the e e o c stating that they're familiar with the workforce solutions they want to make sure that that ms contrary gets a fair shake  settlement agreement with workforce solutions after the settlement agreement was executed in during the recession period the attorneys for workforce solutions used ms contrary as personal identifying information to tap into the medicare system to find out whether she was eligible to receive medicare benefits and then said well we're going to withhold payment until you felt all these forms and do everything that we're telling you to do because based on their information she was eligible for medicare benefits it was right on the right on the time line where she had just turned sixty miss contrary or was very upset and she rescinded the settlement agreement prompting the filing of this loss it there are six factors that this court should consider in determining whether parent county workforce solutions is entitled to th amendment immunity our argument is not that any workforce development board or any boarder even any private entity is barred from th amendment immunity in fact under klein there have been statutes that the state has passed saying a private hospital nonprofit hospital you're now an arm of the state because you're doing something that's very beneficial and we're going to through you we're going to serve the state purpose the most important factor is where does the funding come from up until this most recent brief the apple e's have not disputed our claims that sixty five percent or more of their funding comes from the federal government because of workforce solutions administers the federal child care and development fund out of fifty eight million dollars according to their most recent public disclosures thirty eight million dollars comes from that find that it's not a state fine that is a federal fund moreover unlike all of the other camps what do you know about that federal fund are those are these like the state block grants that they're basically given to the board to then disperse to recipients is that the idea yes your honor is that it is not only to disperse to recipients but other entities can apply for funding for subsidies in child care for example if you have a daycare you and your corporation provides daycare for low income low income job applicants or employees your daycare could be subsidized through that problem so i am more interested in how it gets to the board and then is also a federal program and that is a that is a program that is distributed through the state in the state distributes to agencies that apply for for grant funding so the state is a similar sort of idea that to them then being the board the defense here correct and what distinguishes this board from the other boards that receive funding is the other boards are five hundred and one c three corporations they are incorporated in the state of texas and register with the secretary of state here this is a general partnership between cities of th cities of arlington and terrence county they have not registered with the secretary of state and their bylaws do not specifically align themselves with the state of texas in any way matter fact their bylaws in their inner off enter local agreement state that they are responsible for any shortfall that the cities themselves and we know that municipalities and counties are not entitled to let them immunity i recognize that you haven't had discovered this case so if you don't know i don't understand why but other fund sources four one hundred and eighty six thousand one hundred and eighty five do you know what that is i don't know what that is but i do know that the county workforce solutions solicit private funding from private corporations and partnerships matter of fact before the board can even be recognized for grant purposes by the state of texas a large percentage of the board must be made up of local businesses and they solicit those local businesses agencies that apply for funding however under state statute under the texas government code any workforce development board is entitled to apply for funding wherever they can get funding from whether it be from state funds federal grants private grants private corporate contributions they can even send out mailers like in the march but a federal dollars come into the state sure is free and then appropriated to the texas workforce down to one who's going to have to pay the bill if there's a judgment is it going to come out of the state treasury or is it going to come out of some sort of federal funds or private funds in this particular case i would argue that there's an insurance company that is funding the apple lease litigation and it would be that insurance carrier and the aptly say well that's not relevant what's the most important factor here is that there is an insurance company that's paying for all of this it's there's an insurance company listed in there certificate of interested persons in this particular case but what they want is they want to catch twenty two just like in alamo workforce development which was a two thousand case in t they wanted to create a catch twenty two they want to say on their website we're an equal employment opportunity we cannot discriminate but if you try to go to the e e o c they're going to say we have th amendment immunity but if you go to the texas workforce commission checks workforce commission says well we we have a working agreement with with the local workforce development board so we're going to send you on to the e e o c to this day even though we've repeatedly asked the texas workforce commission has refused to give us a right to sue letter deferring to the e e o c and so the apple e's quote alamo workforce development several times the problem is that the texas supreme court in two thousand and thirteen said that these workforce development boards are not a state agency and in doing so what the texas supreme court did was they cited to the texas sunset advisory commission where the texas workforce commission's own general counsel said that these local workforce development boards cannot invoke immunity in their own right and the reason is is that in this particular case it is a general partnership between municipalities and county they're not incorporated they're not register with the secretary of state however what we do know is that they have several u c c filings with the secretary of state where they have taken on debt and when they went to apply for that debt the u c c filing say that they're a miss a palette they want to have it both ways but the policy issue here is is a grave grave policy issue that any entity or any municipality or county could essentially create what it coins as a board applied to receive state funds applied to receive federal funds and then essentially use that board as a vehicle to be traded citizens rights and say well we're we're arm of the state because we receive state funds every municipality receives state funds my school district receives state funds and so if every single if they're allowed to create these boards without any kind of oversight well this board has to be certified by the government it does have to be certified by the governor if they want to receive state funds but nowhere in their by laws nowhere in their interest agreement nowhere in their articles did they subject themselves or even cite to texas government code subject themselves to the to the governor's office essentially they're no different in the y m c a and the state funds it's going to have to go through certain processes for example if the y m c a wants to subsidize its child care program and receive funds through the through the texas agricultural commission or the u s d a or something along those lines it's going to have to follow the guidelines of whatever the ground perspectives in the policies are to receive those fines it's no different here the workforce development board is trying to ali itself with other legitimate boards that have incorporated the state of taxes that have that are five hundred and one c three and have gone through different paces simply because they have the same type of name and that's not what we have here what we have here is we have a general partnership between several and municipalities that receives a lion's share of its funding from the federal government and what they're looking to do is are looking to find a way out from being accountable they advertise on their website where an equal employment opportunity employer and they tell prospective candidates prospective employees this is what you're entitle to these are the rights that we're going to protect fund received from us we have in our in the record we have the two thousand and sixteen public report that the board publishes to the citizens of tara county in that report it lays out a pike chart of where all their funding comes from and it says essentially that thirty eight dollars out of the fifty eight million dollars that it receives is for it is through child care programs and so we all the information that we've received or that we have water joe care program child care programs or subsidy programs that that corporations or daycares can apply for to find or subsidize child care for example if you have a single mother who can't find it comes from the state well it comes from the federal government is i don't know your honor i know that that the the workforce improvement opportunity funds come from the federal government through the state of taxes and they did and they're responsible for distributing it to the local entities but it's far as specifically what funding comes out of the state treasury that's collected by taxes taxpayers i don't know maybe honor i see that i'm almost out of time thank you very much for allowing me to present my argument today i really appreciate this opportunity i'm very grateful to you but i thank  this whole case an appeal over immunity really should never of had to happen appellant in this case was free under state law on of the texas labor code where the board would not   pre requisite suit all you have to do is file your charge of sex work force commission and wait one hundred and eighty dollars days and then you can file suit now more than two years have passed and the statute imitation is has been blown so that's that's state money when the state have two questions one is what is the state money that comes to the board and then two is do you get one penny of state money that is not restricted like up as a as grant monies that the basically you have to pass through to the recipients and that's where the money comes from he grants he made makes reference to the federal funds it goes to it's a block grant to the state and the funding to the board comes from the texas general proper ations at the st point i was going to touch on in my argument was told to walk the court through the strict stretch statutory and regulatory scheme that governed the board and how it functions but but i understand perhaps more than most how that how the texas work forth commission has been for the legislative budget board i get that what i'm what i'm confused by is the dollars they come into the feds give them to the state of texas the appropriated as every dollar has to be through the general preparations act when they come to see and then from the local boards those are grant monies that have to be given to grant recipients right like people for workforce training and stuff it's not what you could use to you know without restriction rehabilitate the office in terre county or something absolutely ok so what is the basis of the sentence that is in this affidavit that you think so much your declaration that we make so much of from i guess the general to the board that says work for solution sorry that it is funded by the state of texas that because it's a part of the general perforations act any judgment against workforce solutions could put funds from the state treasury at risk how hello how i don't understand if if the money that you get from the state of texas is to give to grant recipients how could the state of texas ever be on the hook for money judgment against the board well it's not necessarily the state would be on the hook to have to appropriate new money to pay a judgment as we've cited in the brief it is sufficient for purposes of immunity if the judgment interferes with the autonomy of the state funding system if the board has to pay money to answer a judgment the legislature may not have to appropriate new money to pay that judgment but it's still going to take money away from the board in interfere with  and that is not the only clock factor the other ones are difficult to apply because for example ten a county clearly has governmental immunity under state law it can be waived in certain circumstances but it's not entitled to th in the immunity and you certainly don't have any more immunity than te county would so the other court factors are difficult this one is easy and it's the most important we said and i don't understand how this sentence is true actually i respectfully would argue that the board does have more federal immunity than the city of arlington because it is an arm of the texas workforce commission which is a state agency the board is created by the texas government because it's subject to all the regulations of the texas workforce said this court has said over and over since clark that the most important of the six factors is the money you guys filed a declaration in federal court that says any judgment against work for solutions could put funds from the state treasury at risk and it's not obvious to me how that's true because you're certainly not talking about the grant money that you guys get from the state because that's restricted by the general procreation back to be paid in and in accordance with the writers and the regulations for the t t c the appropriations made to the board aren't necessarily restricted to grant money the texas general operation act appropriate money to the board that's not necessarily just grant money that that comes with the kind of restrictions well that was my st question i thought maybe i misunderstood answer your earlier question the statutory and regulatory scheme including the funding scheme for the workforce development the boards is analytically no different th n the scheme in the pres case and which this court held that the same sort of multi tiered funding and regulatory scheme fit for the educational system in the state of texas  regulatory multi tiered funding system is exactly the same the nd point i was going to touch on in argument is the case that account relies so heavily on and it's brief a state court claim for breach of contract against the board under the texas tort claims act and the question there was was that the board in that case the lower rio grande valley immune under texas law  for that state law claim and so it has no bearing on whether or not there is federal nummi in this case rely heavily on the one state in an arbor that boards are not under state law considered to be a state agency under the texas tort claims act but the court did go on to say that boards were arms of the state precisely because of that they carry out the  training employment and employment related educational programs available in the state so even under arbor state agency that workforce development board is considered an arm of the under the job training and partnership back in the other federal statutes of existed for decades the governors st got to designate workforce development districts within the state and that begins with him appointing a council required by those federal statutes the council recommends to the governor does admission of those areas in this case it's founding it's only after the governor designates those areas that  local governments can apply for creation of a board that application has to go to the texas workforce commission that application is subject to all kinds of regulatory requirements for what it has to include the board's regulations governing who can sit on the board require it designates particular types of people that have to be on the board it's got to be a veteran who's got me some money who's trained in early budget has to be approved and not just the board that submitted to it submitted to the governor's office it submitted to the legislature's budget in body it submitted to the comptroller there's heavy state regulation over the board's funding and how that funding the jews within ninety days of the fiscal year the board has to submit an annual report on how those funds have been spent the text workforce commission may withhold funds from the board and may recommend the certification of the board so there is heavy state regulation of virtually every aspect of the board's operation not just funding regulations of the tax workforce commission has complete local autonomy and it's only the city of arlington city of fort worth that's run the show it's just simply not the case council how many of the dollars in this in this in your report that there's fifty eight million six hundred and sixty eight thousand two hundred forty five dollars how much of that is appropriated in the g a a i couldn't tell you i was expecting that was an easy i didn't mean it to be a tricky question but you can say it was all of it i would assume that to be the case but i don't know when it's appropriate in the ga the general appropriated to the t w c or is it appropriate to the local boards as i understand it as infrared as it's a multi tiered system it gets delegated down to the tax work force national text workforce commission but but if i go pick up our annual budget for the state of texas i want to see the local boards all see that the t w c line items i suspect that to be the case i don't know that but i suspect that to be the case and so the restrictions on the grant funds presumably that we were talking about earlier i can appear in the statute because any questions i'm happy to respond to them otherwise i would save my time as well thank you point that they've probably brought up that you've been asking about there is no risk of money judgment being a holding up any state treasury funds those are all passed through it is  uncomment on the boards to apply for those grants interests do you think it's incumbent on the board to make sure that they qualify further if it is as heavily regulated cover any type of judgment like this it would be income it would be responsible to fall back on the board and the joint insufferably several e liable partners of the city of fort worth the view of arlington  turned county to pay the judgment further i want to address the the point where he said why didn't you just soon state court we tried the t w c must issue a right to sue letter before a person can bring a claim in state court against their employer the t w c absolutely refused to investigate or issue a finding and refused to issue a right to sue letter instead they sent a notice saying we are forwarding your did issue the right to sue letter and now we have this issue where the court is placed in a double bind where appellee submit themselves by receiving federal funds and distributing them  to the employee protection laws and yet they're claiming that they are not accountable under the state or federal laws they receive federal plea deal that directly the notice on the pollies website says that they receive title one funding and because of that they cannot discriminate against any individual on the basis of disability further they say that work for solution for terror at county must not discriminate in any of the following areas such as making employment decisions in the administration of or connection with such a program or activity further  i want to go back to what those employment activities the local operations look like  texas government code twenty section twenty three thousand and eighty one hundred and three absolutely forbids the workforce investment council from adopting rules that relate to local regulations on local operation it is once the appellee conforms to the qualifications to receive the grant and applies for the grant and receives it it is up to them to evaluate the needs of the local community prioritize those needs and develop programs that further the objectives for which they received those monies all of those things will lend towards that appellee is very autonomous with what they choose to do with that money so long as it further all arguments for today the court will take this matter under advisement and we stand in recess until tomorrow