Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-01025/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-01025-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 38:4311 Uniformed Service Employment/Reemployment Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:08-cv-1025-MEF

)

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF )

MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL ) (WO)

RETARDATION, )

)

DEFENDANT. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The United States of America (“the United States”) brings suit against the Alabama

Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (“the Department”) for alleged

violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994,

38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4333 (“USERRA”). The cause is before the Court on the Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss or Alternative Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 17) and

Plaintiff United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 15). Both motions

address the issue of whether certain of the Department’s asserted affirmative defenses are

valid. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s motion is due to be DENIED and the

Plaintiff’s motion is due to be GRANTED.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §

4323(b). There is no dispute as to the Department being subject to personal jurisdiction.

Venue is proper in the Court pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §4323(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Case 2:08-cv-01025-MEF-CSC Document 52 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 10
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 30, 2008, the United States filed this civil action against the

Department. The United States alleges that the Department violated USERRA by failing to

promptly reemploy a longtime Department employee named Roy Hamilton (“Hamilton”)

after he returned from active military service in Iraq. The United States seeks declaratory

relief, injunctive relief which would require the Department to comply with all provisions

of USERRA and to compensate Hamilton for lost earnings and benefits. The United States

also seeks injunctive relief which would return Hamilton to the seniority, status and

compensation he would have attained had he remained continuously employed with the

Department until the present including during the time of his active duty service. Finally, the

United States seeks to enjoin the Department from future violations of USERRA.

On January 29, 2009, the Department filed its Answer (Doc. # 8). In this Answer, the

Department asserted a number of “affirmative defenses.” Those defenses included: a

contention that the Eleventh Amendment bars this action, a contention that comity, “our

federalism, or a variety of abstention doctrines bar this action, and an assertion that the Mt.

Healthy defense is applicable. On June 5, 2009, the United States filed its motion for partial

summary judgment. By this motion, the United States contends that as a matter of law the

affirmative defenses relating to the Eleventh Amendment, comity, federalism, and various

types of abstention are inapplicable to this action. The United States further contends that

the Mt. Healthy defense is inapplicable as a matter of law.

On June 5, 2009, the Department filed a motion seeking dismissal pursuant to Federal

2

Case 2:08-cv-01025-MEF-CSC Document 52 Filed 02/09/10 Page 2 of 10
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Alternatively, the Department sought

judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Like the

motion from the United States, the Department’s motions address the affirmative defenses

relating to the Eleventh Amendment, comity, federalism, and various types of abstention.

On June 5, 2009, the Department filed a separate motion for summary judgment predicated

on different grounds. The Court will address that motion by a separate opinion.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

While these motions before the Court all address substantially the same legal issues,

the applicable legal standards vary because of the differing natures of the motions. Each of

these standards is discussed below.

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion attacks the court’s subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an

action. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Prior to the

Supreme Court’s decision in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007), a motion

to dismiss could only be granted if a plaintiff could prove “no set of facts . . . which would

entitle him to relief.” See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Hishon v.

King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 967 (11th Cir.

1986). Now, in order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff

must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly,

127 S. Ct. at 1974. While the factual allegations of a complaint need not be detailed, a

plaintiff must nevertheless “provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ and a

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 1965. A

3

Case 2:08-cv-01025-MEF-CSC Document 52 Filed 02/09/10 Page 3 of 10
plaintiff’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above a speculative

level on the assumption that the allegations in the complaint are true.” Id. It is not sufficient

that the pleadings merely “le[ave] open the possibility that the plaintiff might later establish

some set of undisclosed facts to support recovery.” Id. at 1968 (internal quotation and

alteration omitted). In considering a defendant’s motion to dismiss, a district court will

accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in a light most favorable

to the plaintiff. See Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1057 (11th Cir.

2007). Accord, Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 640 (2004) (where a court is considering

dismissal of a complaint at the pleading stage, it must assume the allegations of the

complaint are true).

Pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Department’s

motion for judgment on the pleadings requests dismissal of the Government’s complaint. In

deciding a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, a Court may consider only the

pleadings, in this case the Complaint and Answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A motion for

judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is governed by the same standards as a motion

to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The main difference between the motions is that a motion

for judgment on the pleadings is made after an answer and that answer may also be

considered in deciding the motion. “[T]he fact allegations of the complaint are to be taken

as true, but those of the answer are taken as true only where and to the extent that they have

not been denied or do not conflict with those of the complaint.” Stanton v. Larsh, 239 F.2d

4

Case 2:08-cv-01025-MEF-CSC Document 52 Filed 02/09/10 Page 4 of 10
104, 106 (5th Cir. 1956) ; Bass v. Hoagland, 172 F.2d 205, 207 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 338

1

U.S. 816 (1949). In order to prevail, a motion for judgment on the pleadings “must be based

on the undisputed facts appearing in all the pleadings.” Stanton, 239 F.2d at 106.

Furthermore, the Court is obliged to scrutinize the complaint, construed in plaintiff's favor,

and to allow it to stand if it alleges “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on

its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). Thus, judgment on the

pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is appropriate when there

are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Mergens v. Dreyfoos, 166 F.3d 1114, 1116-17 (11th Cir. 1999).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d) plainly provides that when a party presents

matters outside of the pleadings in a motion brought pursuant to Rule 12(c), the motion must

be treated as one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 unless the Court excludes those

matters outside the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). A court inclined to consider materials

outside the pleadings presented by a motion pursuant to Rule 12(c) must give the parties a

reasonable opportunity to present all materials pertinent to the motion. Id. In this case, the

Court will exercise its discretion to exclude the materials presented or cited in the

Department’s motion which are not found in the pleadings.

Unlike the motions from the Department, the United States’ motion is predicated on

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. Nov. 3, 1981)

1

(en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions

handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

5

Case 2:08-cv-01025-MEF-CSC Document 52 Filed 02/09/10 Page 5 of 10
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 which tests the sufficiency of a claim or defense on the

basis of a submitted evidentiary record as opposed to on the allegations of the pleadings.

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment

as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A material fact is genuine only “if the evidence

is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). According to the Supreme Court, “a party

seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district

court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it

believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quotation omitted). The movant can meet this burden by

presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which

it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-23.

After the movant satisfies this requirement, the burden shifts to “the adverse party

[who] must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson,

477 U.S. at 250 (quotation omitted). “[T]his standard provides that the mere existence of

some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly

supported motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 247-48. The non-moving party “must do

more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”

6

Case 2:08-cv-01025-MEF-CSC Document 52 Filed 02/09/10 Page 6 of 10
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “[a]ll reasonable inferences arising from the

undisputed facts should be made in favor of the nonmovant, but an inference based on

speculation and conjecture is not reasonable.” Blackston v. Shook & Fletcher Insulation Co.,

764 F.2d 1480, 1482 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

A. The Department’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 12(b) is Untimely.

Rule 12(b) requires a defendant to make a motion pursuant to 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) 

prior to filing a responsive pleading. Specifically, it states that “[a] motion asserting any of

these defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b). Here, the Department filed its answer long before filing its motions pursuant

to Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6). As a result the motion is due to be DENIED as untimely

to the extent that it seeks to rely upon Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6). 

B. Neither Alabama’s Sovereign Immunity, Nor the Eleventh Amendment, Bars

This Action Brought by the Federal Government to Enforce a Federal Statute.

The Department contends that USERRA is not enforceable against states acting as

employers because Alabama’s sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment shields it

from suit in federal court. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

provides that

[t]he judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any

suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United

States by citizens of another state or by citizens or subjects of any foreign

state.

7

Case 2:08-cv-01025-MEF-CSC Document 52 Filed 02/09/10 Page 7 of 10
U.S. Const. amend. XI (emphasis added). The plain text of this provision does nothing to

prohibit the United States from bringing suit against a state. It is well-settled that states are

subject to suit by the United States. See, e.g., United States v. Mississippi, 380 U.S. 128

(1965); Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313, 329 (1934); EEOC v. Bd. of Supervisors for

the Univ. of. La. Sys., 559 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009); Chao v. Va. Dep’t of Transp., 291

F.3d 276, 280 (4th Cir. 2002). States, in ratifying the Constitution, did surrender a portion

of their inherent immunity by consenting to suits brought by sister States or by the Federal

Government. See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 755 (1999). Indeed, one of the very

cases on which the Department relies for its contention that the Eleventh Circuit bars this

action, in fact, recognizes that the “Federal Government can bring suit in federal court

against a State” in order to ensure its “compliance with federal law.” Seminole Tribe of Fla.

v. Fla., 517 U.S. at 44, 71 n.14 (1996) (holding that Congress lacked authority under Article

I of the Constitution to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit by

private parties without the states’ consent).

More specifically, USERRA itself contemplates the filing of this very type of

action. If the Attorney General is reasonably satisfied that the person on

whose behalf the complaint is referred is entitled to the rights or benefits

sought, the Attorney General may appear on behalf of ...the person on whose

behalf the complaint is submitted and commence an action for relief under this

chapter for such person. In the case of such an action against a State (as an

employer), the action shall be brought in the name of the United States as the

plaintiff in the action.

38 U.S.C. § 4323(a) (emphasis added).

The Department argues that the United States is not acting here to protect its interests

8

Case 2:08-cv-01025-MEF-CSC Document 52 Filed 02/09/10 Page 8 of 10
and that the real party in interest is Hamilton. The Court cannot agree. The United States

has a clear interest in protecting the employment rights of members of its armed services

2

upon them return from deployment because these rights are key in promoting enlistment.

Additionally, the United States has a real and substantial interest in insuring compliance with

its laws generally as well as with USERRA specifically.

Simply put, there is no merit to the Department’s contention that sovereign immunity

or the Eleventh Amendment shield it from this suit. To the extent that the Department seeks

judgment on the pleadings on this basis, its motion is due to be DENIED. To the extent that

the United States seeks judgment as a matter of law on the inapplicability of this defense, its

motion is due to be GRANTED.

C. Abstention Doctrine Does Not Bar This Action

Asserting nearly every variety of abstention recognized by law, the Department asks

this Court to reject the United States’ suit. Unfortunately, the Department is unable to

articulate how these doctrines could conceivably apply in this context. The invoked doctrines

seek to prevent federal courts from meddling in pending state court criminal prosecutions,

duplicating the efforts of a parallel state court action, interfering in state administrative

proceedings, or tackling difficult questions of state law. It borders on the ridiculous to

suggest such concerns are present in this case. Comity presents no bar. This is not a case of

the federal government seeking to interfere with a state’s ability to perform its separate

 Without question members of the National Guard and the Reserve play a vital role

2

in this nation’s armed forces.

9

Case 2:08-cv-01025-MEF-CSC Document 52 Filed 02/09/10 Page 9 of 10
functions. There is no appropriate legal grounds for abstention in this case. To the extent

that the Department’s motion was based on such a contention, it is due to be DENIED.

D. The Mt. Healthy Defense Is Inapplicable As A Matter of Law.

In its partial motion for summary judgment, the United States also seeks judgment as

a matter of law on one of the other affirmative defenses which the Department has asserted:

the Mt. Healthy defense. In its brief, the United States cogently explains why this defense

fails as a matter of law. The Department concedes that absent an allegation of intentional

discrimination this defense is not necessary. Accordingly, the United States’ motion is due

to be granted as to this affirmative defense as well.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternative Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings (Doc. # 17) is DENIED.

2. The Plaintiff United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 15) is

GRANTED.

DONE this the 9 day of February, 2010.

th

/s/ Mark E. Fuller

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

Case 2:08-cv-01025-MEF-CSC Document 52 Filed 02/09/10 Page 10 of 10