Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51081/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51081-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51081

JOEL PAUL BACH, 

 Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY; MICHAEL THOMAS BLANDA; 

BILLY C. COVINGTON, PH.D., 

 Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CV-27

Before JONES, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joel Bach sued his employer, Texas State University, for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The district court dismissed 

the claim as barred by state sovereign immunity. Because Bach has failed to 

show waiver, we affirm.

 

* 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

September 1, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51081 Document: 00513177971 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2015
No. 14-51081

2

I.

Bach was paid based on a forty-hour workweek but frequently had to 

work more hours. He was not compensated time-and-a-half for those hours 

despite repeated requests to the school. He sued, contending that the university had violated the FLSA by erroneously classifying him as exempt and failing to pay him overtime.1 

The university moved to dismiss based on state sovereign immunity. 

The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because Bach had not shown a

valid abrogation or waiver of state sovereign immunity. Bach’s objection to the

magistrate judge’s report relied heavily on what Bach contended was the clear 

legislative history of the Texas provisions that adopted the FLSA’s rules for 

calculating overtime, Texas Government Code Sections 659.015 and 659.016. 

The district court dismissed the case as barred by state sovereign immunity.

II.

Bach challenges only the conclusion that Texas did not waive its sovereign immunity in adopting Sections 659.015 and 659.016 “We review de novo 

a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction because of state sovereign immunity.” Meyers ex rel. Bening v. Texas, 410 F.3d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 2005). Because the party asserting 

that the federal courts have jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it, Bach 

must show that Texas waived its immunity. St. Tammany Parish, ex rel. Davis 

v. FEMA, 556 F.3d 307, 315 (5th Cir. 2009).

III.

The district court was presented with several theories as to why the 

 

1 After amending his complaint, Bach also asserted claims against his former supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The dismissal of those claims is not challenged in this appeal.

 Case: 14-51081 Document: 00513177971 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2015
No. 14-51081

3

university did not enjoy state sovereign immunity, including abrogation by 

Congress and acceptance of federal funds. The only theory Bach presses on 

appeal is that the legislative history of Sections 659.015 and 659.016 shows 

Texas waived immunity.

That contention is unavailing. “A statute’s legislative history cannot 

supply a waiver that does not appear clearly in any statutory text.” Lane v. 

Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996); see also F.A.A. v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1441, 1448 

(2012). The Court has consistently held that such a waiver must be in the text 

of a statute.2 Even if Bach could find an unequivocal statement of waiver in 

the legislative history, he would need to show it the text of the statute.

The text and legislative history both lack an unequivocal waiver of 

immunity from private damages suits in federal court. The sole material provided by Bach is a bill analysis prepared by the Texas Senate to accompany 

the legislation that enacted the sections. The only relevant text merely tracks

the language of Section 659.015, which states that, in determining whether an 

employee is entitled to overtime compensation, “federal law controls” when 

“this section and federal law prescribe a different rule for the same circumstance.”3 That falls far short of a “clear declaration by the State” that 

“unequivocally express[es]” its consent to suit. Sossamon, 131 S. Ct. at 1658. 

Bach has not shown waiver.

AFFIRMED.

 

2 See, e.g., Lane, 518 U.S. at 192; Cooper, 132 S. Ct. at 1448; Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 

553 U.S. 474, 491 (2008); Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651, 1658 (2011).

3 Senate Comm. on Finance, Bill Analysis, Tex. S.B. 174, 76th Leg., R.S. (1999); accord 

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 659.015(b) (West).

 Case: 14-51081 Document: 00513177971 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/01/2015