Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-51227/USCOURTS-ca5-03-51227-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 2, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 03-51227

Summary Calendar

_____________________

ADOLPH R. HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA:03-CV-526-FB

_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

I

Adolph Hernandez sued his employer, the Texas Department of

Human Services (“TDHS”) for gender discrimination under Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (West 2004) and

age and disability discrimination under the Texas Commission on

Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”), Texas Labor Code § 21.101 et seq. (West

2004). He also sought damages and equitable relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1981a(a)(2)(b) (West 2004). 

 Case: 03-51227 Document: 0051113994 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2004
1The district court also dismissed Hernandez’ claims under 42

U.S.C. § 1981 and denied TDHS’ request that the court order

Hernandez to re-plead his Title VII claim. These rulings are not

before us on appeal.

2See also College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary

Ed. Expense Bd., 527, U.S. 666, 675-76 (1999) (a State’s consent to

suit must be unequivocally expressed).

2

TDHS answered Gonzalez’ complaint by asserting the affirmative

defense of Eleventh Amendment immunity. It then the filed a motion

to dismiss the TCHRA claims, arguing that a district court may not

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims without

independent subject matter jurisdiction over them.

The district court denied the motion to dismiss because it

found federal question jurisdiction over the Title VII claims, and

thus could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the TCHRA

claims.1 TDHS appeals. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to

the collateral order doctrine, because the appeal involves a claim

(and denial) of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See, e.g., Puerto

Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139,

142-45 (1993).

II

The State of Texas has waived its sovereign immunity in state

courts for TCHRA violations. King v. Texas Dept. of Human Svcs.,

ex rel. Bost, 28 S.W.3d 27, 30 (Tex. App. - Austin, 2000).

2 Texas’

waiver of sovereign immunity in its own courts, however, is not a

waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts.

 Case: 03-51227 Document: 0051113994 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2004
3In addition to the numerous Supreme Court rulings, there is

nothing in this Court’s jurisprudence supporting the proposition

that jurisdictional statues overcome a State’s Eleventh Amendment

immunity.

3

Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 238 (1985).

Indeed, the Eleventh Amendment bars the adjudication of pendent

state law claims against nonconsenting state defendants in federal

court. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Haldermann, 465 U.S. 89,

120 (1984). And the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367 (West 2004), which codified pendent jurisdiction, does not

abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. Raygor v. Regents of the

Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 541-42 (2002).3

This Court clearly held that the TCHRA does not waive Texas’

Eleventh Amendment immunity. Perez v. Region 20 Educ. Serv. Ctr.,

307 F.3d 318, 332 (2002). We now hold, therefore, that the

district court is barred from exercising jurisdiction over

Hernandez’ TCHRA claims; it should have granted the motion to

dismiss. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

REVERSED, with instructions to dismiss the state law claims.

 Case: 03-51227 Document: 0051113994 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2004