2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-25-2008 

# Lomb ardo v

. C omm of P

A W el f are P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4628

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" L omb ar do v

. C omm of P

A W e l far e " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 573. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/573PRECEDENTI AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 06- 4628

____________ M I CH AE L A. L OM BA RD O

v. CO M M ONWE AL T H OF P E NNS YL VANI A, DE P AR T M E NT O F PU B L I C W E L FA R E ; E ST E L L E R I C H M A N , Secr et aryof t h e D e p a r t m e n to f

P u b l i c W e l f

a r e , i n h e ro f

f i c i a l c a p a c i t y, A p p e llan ts

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 06- cv- 00732) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. N eal on

A r gued O ct ober24, 2007 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , C H A G A R E S , an d H A R D IM A N , C irc u it Judg es.

____________ ( Fi l ed: A ugus t25, 2008)

T h o m as W

. C o rbe tt , Jr. J ohn G

. K nor r , I I I ( A r gued) M a ry a n n e M . L e w is O f f ice o f th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D epart m entof J us t i ce S tr aw b erryS q u are2 H arr i s bur g, PA 17120 C o u n se l f

o r A p p e llan ts

K i m ber l yD

. B or l and ( A r gued) Bor l a nd & Bor l a nd , L. L. P. 69 Publ i c Squar e 11th Fl oor W i l kes B arr e, PA 18701 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

___________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________
C H A G A R E S , C irc u it J udge. T h is ca se re q u ire s the C o u rt to c o n sid e r th e c o n to u rs o f sta te so v e re ig n im m u n ity a n d u n d e r w h a t circ u m sta n c e s s u c h im m u n ity m a yb e w a iv e d

. A lleg in g v io latio n s o f b o th f e d e ra l an d s ta te a n tidi s cr i m i nat ion l aw s , M i chae l A

. L om bar do ( L om bar do) fi l ed an empl oym entdi s cr i m i nati o n compl ai nti n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas of Luzerne C oun ty ag ai ns tt he C om m onw eal t h of P e n n s yl v a n i a ’ s D e p a r t m e n to f P u b l i c W e l f

a r e a n d i t s S e c r e t a r y, E s t el l e R i chard so n, i n heroffi ci al capa ci t y( col l ect i vel y , the C o m m o n w e a lth ). B a se d o n th e f e d e ra l cla im , the C o m m o n w e a lth r emoved t he compl ai ntt o the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof P ennsy l vani a and s oughtpar t i al di s m i s s al on s over ei gn i m m uni t ygr ounds

. T he part i es acknow l edge that Penns y l vani a has nots t atut or i l yw ai ved i t s s over ei gn i m m uni t yfor cl ai m s br oughtu n d er the fe der al s t atut e ati s s ue, and theyagr ee t hatt he ce nt r al ques t i on i n thi s appea l i s w hethert he C om m onw eal t h w ai ved s uch i m m uni tybyv o l unt ar i l yr emovi ng th is m a tte r f

ro m s ta te to f

e d e ra l c o u rt
.3 T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s m o tio n to d ism iss , re a so n in g th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth w a iv e d its E le v e n th A m endmenti m m uni t ybyr emovi ng the case . W e agr ee thatthe C om m onw eal t h’ s vol unt aryr emoval unequi vocal l yi nvoked the j ur i s di ct i on of th e fede r al cour t s and ther ebyw ai ved the C om m onw eal t h’ s E l eventh A m endmen ti m m uni t yfr om s ui ti n a f e d e ra l f o ru m . W e hol d, how ever , thats t at e s o v er ei gn i m m uni t yi ncl udes bot h i m m uni t yfr om s ui ti n fede r al cour tand i m m uni t yfr om li ab il ity , an d that a S tat e m ayw aive o n e w ith o u t w aivin g the o ther. B e c a u se th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s re m o v a l d id n o t w a iv e its im m u n ity fro m li ab il ity , w e w il l r ev erse the ju d g m en t of the D istri ct C o u rt and r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o gr antt he C om m onw eal t h’ s m ot i on f o r p a rtial d ism iss a l. I. L om bar do w o rked a tt he W hi t e H aven Cent er , a s t at eo p e ra ted f

a c ili tyf o r th e d e v e lo p m e n tallyd isa b led lo c a ted in W h ite H aven, Penns y l vani a, for m or e t han 38 y ear s . I n 2003, L om bar do w as pas s ed over for a pr om ot i on. L om bar do, 61 y ear s ol d at t he t i m e, bel i eved thatt hi s act i on w as due t o h is age. O n M ar ch 23, 2006, he fi l ed a c om pl ai ntas s ert i ng tw o gr ound s for r el i ef: vi ol at i on of the fe der al A ge D i s cr im inat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct (A D E A ), 2 9 U .S .C

. § § 6 2 1 -6 3 4 ; an d v io latio n o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia H um an R el at i ons A ct( PH R A ) , 43 Pa. C ons . St at
. §§ 951- 963. L om bardo so ug ht equi t able r el i ef an d d am ages. O n A pr i l 7, 2 0 0 6 , bas ed on the A D E A cl ai m , the P e n nsy l van i a D epart m ent of P ub l i c W el fare ( t he D epart m ent) re m o v e d th e c a se to th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a and m oved for di s m i s s al

. L om bar do then am en d ed h is co m p lai n t t o ad d a se co n d d ef en d an t

– the S ec retary of Publ i c W el far e, E s t el l e R i char ds on, i n her offi ci al capa ci t y . T he C o mmon wea l t h mov e d f o rp a r t i a l d i s mi s s a l o f th e a me n ded c o m p lain t o n th e g ro u n d th a t it s E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity barr ed Lom bar do’ s cl ai m s underthe A D E A , s ave f orhi s cl ai m forT he C om m onw eal t h al s o m oved t o d is m i s s the 1 P H R A claim o n a statute o f li m it ati o n s g rou n d

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e n i e d t h e mot i o n , h o l d i n g t h a tt h i s i s s u e tu r n e d o n q u e s t i o n s of f a c t w h ich c o u ld n o t b e re so lv e d in th e c o n tex t o f a m o tio n to di s m i s s . T h at h o l di ng i s notbefor e thi s C our t , and the Co mmo n we a l t h d i d n o t a s s e r ti mmu n i t ya s t o Lo mb a r d o ’ s P HRA c l a i m.

4 pr os pect i ve i nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tthe Secr et ary . T he D istr i ct 1 C our t deni ed t he m ot i on t o di s m i s s , hol di ng that the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s vo lun taryrem o v al of the c ase to f

ed era l cou rt w aive d it s E leve n th A m en d m en t im m u n ity u n d er L ap ides v . B o ard of R egent s of the U ni ver s i t y S y stem of G eor gi a, 535 U

. S. 613 ( 200 2 ) , e v e n t h o u g h Pe n n s y l v a n i a h a s n o t c o n s e n t e d t o s u i t or w ai ved i m m uni t yundert he A D E A i n i t s ow n court s . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. T he D i s t r i ct C our t had subj ect m att er j ur i s di ct i on pur s uant t o 28 U

. S. C

. §§ 1331 and 1343. D efe ndant s appea l fr om t he Di s t r i c t Cou r t ’ s o r d e r d e n y i n g a c l a i m o f s o v e r e i g n i mmun i t yby t he D epart m ent , a s t at e age ncy . W e have s ubj ectm att er ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , as su c h o rd e rs a re im m e d iate ly appea l able undert he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne. See Puer t o R i co A queduct & S ew erA ut h. v. M et cal f & E ddy , I nc. , 506 U

. S. 139, 147 ( 1993). T hi s C our texer ci s es pl enaryr evi ew overan or der d e n y i n g a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s b a s e d o n s o v e r e i g n i mm u n i t y . M

. A. ex r el

. E

. S. v. St at e- O per at ed Sch. D i s t
. of t he C i t y of N ew ark, 344 F .3 d 3 3 5 , 3 4 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). III

. O u r C o n stitu tio n e sta b lish e d a sy ste m o f “ d u a l so v e re ig n ty betw een the St at es a n d t he Feder al G overnm ent , ” G r egoryv. A sh cro ft, 5 0 1 U

. S

. 4 5 2 , 4 5 7 (19 9 1 ), in w h ich the S tat es “re tai n ‘a r e s i du a r y a nd i nv i ol a bl e s ov e r e i gn t y . ’ ” A l de n v. M a i ne , 52 7 U. S.5 7 0 6 , 7 1 5 (19 9 9 ) (qu o ti n g T h e F ed era li st N o . 3 9 ) (Jam es M ad ison ); s ee Sem i nol e T r i be of Fl a. v. Fl or i da, 517 U

. S. 44, 71 n. 15 ( 1996) ( acknow l edgi ng t hat“[t ] he C ons t i tut i on s peci fi ca l l yr e c o g n i zes the S tate s a s s o v e re ig n e n tit ies ” ). A n im p o rta n t f e a tu r e o f

th is s over ei gnt yi s s t at e s overe i gn i m m uni t y . See Puert o R i co A queduct , 506 U

. S. at146 ( s t at i ng t hat“the S t at es , al t hough a uni on, m ai nt ai n cert ai n at t r i but es of s over eignt y , i ncl udi ng s over ei gn i m m uni t y ”)

. T he Supr eme C our t ha s des cr i bed s over ei gn i m m uni t y“as bas ed ‘ on t he l ogi cal and pr act i cal gr ound t hatt her e ca n be no l egal r i ght as agai ns tt he author i t yt hatm akes t h e l a w o n wh i c h t h e r i g h t d e p e n d s . ’ ” Ne v a d a v . Ha l l , 44 0 U. S. 41 0, 41 6 ( 19 79 ) (quo t i ng K a w a na na ko a v. Pol ybl a nk , 20 5 U. S. 3 4 9 , 3 5 3 (19 0 7 )). * * * * * Fort he r eas ons thatfo l l ow , w e hol d t hats t at e s over ei gn i m m unit y is nota uni t aryconce pt
. W e ca n di s cern t w o di s t i nct t ypes of s t at e s over ei gn i m m uni t y : i m m uni t y fr om s ui t i n fede r al c o u r ta n d i m m u n i t y f

r o m l i a b i l i t y.

A. T he im m un i t yof S t at es f rom sui ti n the federal cou rt s i s a fundamen tal asp ectof s t at e s over ei gnt y . N

. I ns . C o. of N

. Y

. v. Chatha m Coun t y , 54 7 U

. S. 18 9, 19 3 ( 20 06 ) ; s e e A l de n, 52 7 U

. S. at718 (not i ng J ohn M ar s hal l ’ s comm entatthe V i r gi ni a r at i fy i ng convent i on t hat “‘ I hope no gent l eman w i l l t hi nk t hata s t at e w i l l be cal l ed att he barof the fed eral court ’ ”) ( quot i ng 3 D ebat es on t he F e d e r a l Co n s t i tu t i o n 5 5 5 ( J

. El l i o t2 d e d

. 1 8 5 4 ) )

. Th e S u p r e me C o urt has expl ai ned t hat “[t ]he fou nd i ng gen erat i on t ho ug h t it
‘ nei t herbecomi ng norconveni entthatthe s ever al St at es of the U ni on, i nves t ed w i t h t hatl ar ge r es i duum of s over ei gntyw hi ch had notbeen d eleg at ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es , s houl d be s um m oned as defe ndant s t o ans w ert he compl ai nt s of pr i vat e per s ons . ’ ” A l den, 5 2 7 U

. S

. at 74 8 (qu o ti n g In re A y ers, 12 3 U

. S

. 4 4 3 , 5 0 5 (18 8 7 )). O nl yfi v e y ear s aft erthe adopt i on of the C ons t i tut i on, h o w ev er, th e S u p rem e C o u rtin C h isho lm v . G eo rgia, 2 U

. S

. (2 D al l

. ) 419 (17 93 ), determ i ned t hat t he st at e-ci t i zen diver si t ycl ause6 of A r t i cl e I I I of th e C ons t i tut i on s ubj ect ed the St at es t o fede r al cour tj ur i s di ct i on. T hi s hol di ng l ed di r ect ly to t he expe di t i ous adopt i on of the El eventh A m endment , w hi ch pr ovi des : “T he J udi ci al pow erof t he U ni t ed S t at es s hal l notbe cons t rued t o ext end t o anys ui ti n l aw orequi t y , comm ence d orpr os ecut ed aga i ns tone of the U ni t ed St at es byC i t i zens of anotherSt at e, orby C i t i zens or Subj ect s o f an y For ei gn St at e. ” U

. S. C ons t
. amend. X I

. I n H ans v. L oui s i ana, 134 U

. S. 1 ( 1890) , the Supr eme C our text ended the E l eventh A m endment ’ s r eac h t o s ui t s byi n- s t at e pl ai nt i ffs , t hus barr i ng al l pr i vat e s ui t s agai ns tnon- cons ent i ng S tat es i n fede r al c o u rt
. A c c o rd in g ly , itis c lea r th a t th e S tat e s p o ss e ss im m u n ity fr om s ui ti n t he fe der al cour t s , al s o know n as E l eventh A m endment i m m u n i t y. B. T he S upr eme C our t has al s o r ecogni zed, how ever , t hat“the E l even t h A m end m ent does no tdefine t he sc o p e of the S t at es’ s over ei gn i m m uni t y ; i t i s but one par t i cul ar exempl i fi cat i on of that i mm un i t y . ” Fe d. M a r . Com m’ n v. S. C. St a t e Port s A uth. , 53 5 U. S. 743, 753 ( 2002) ; s ee i d. ( s t at i ng t hatt he El eventh A m endmentdoes not“expl i ci t l ym emori al i z[e ] the ful l br eadth of the s over ei gn i m m uni t yr et ai ned by the St at es w hen the C ons t i tut i on w as r at i fi ed”)

. C ons equent l y , “the s over ei gn i m m uni t y enj oy ed bythe S ta te s e x te n d s b e y o n d th e lite ra l te x t o f th e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t.” Id. at75 4; s ee A l den , 52 7 U

. S

. at71 3 (observi ng t hat the p hrase “El eventh A m endmenti m m uni t y ” “i s conveni ent s hor t hand but s om ethi ng of a mi s nom er , fort he s over ei gn i m m uni t yof the St at es n e ith e r d e riv e s f

ro m , n o r is lim it e d b y, th e ter m s o f th e E lev e n th A m en d m en t”). S tat e so v ere ign im m u n itythu s co m p ri ses m o re t han j usti m m un i t yfrom su it in fe deral cou rt
. Ital so i ncludes a St a t e ’ s i mm un i t yfr om l i a bi l i t y . Se e Fe d. M a r . Com m’ n, 53 5 U. S. at76 6 (“So verei gn i m m un i t y do es no t m erel y con st i tute a defense t o m onet ary l i abi l i t y or even t o al l t ypes of l i abi l i t y . ”) ; D el l m uth v. M ut h, 491 U

. S. 22 3 , 229 ( 1989) ( decl i ni ng t o overrul e the “l ongstandi ng hol di ng” of H ans th a t “a n u n c o n se n tin g S tate isForC ongr es s t o “author ize a su i ti n t he exe r ci s e of 2 its p o w e r to e n f

o rc e ” A rticle I, § 5 o f

th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t, C o n g re ss “ m u st id e n tifyc o n d u c t tran sg re ss in g th e F o u rte e n th A m endment ’ s s ubs t ant i ve pr ovi s i ons , and mustt a i l ori t s l egi s l at i ve sc h e m e to re m e d y in g o r p re v e n tin g su c h c o n d u c t.” F la. P re p a id Pos t s e c on da r yEduc

. E xp ense Bd. v. Col l

. Sa v. Bank , 52 7 U. S.
7 im m u n e f

rom li ab il ityfo r da m ag es in a su it b rou g h t i n fe d era l cou rt byone of i t s ow n ci t i zens ”) ; E del m an v. J or dan, 415 U

. S. 651, 662- 64 ( 1974) ( c h a r a c t e r i z i n g s t a t e s over ei gn i m m uni t yas s afe guar di ng S tat es a g ains t bo th “s u it s” a n d “li ab il ity ”). W e lo o k to sta te la w to d e te r m in e if th e C o m m o n w e a lth m a in tain s a se p a ra te im m u n ityf ro m liab ili ty
. U n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia l aw , t he C om m onw eal t h enj oy s s over ei gn i m m uni t yunl es s t he G ener al A s s embl y“s peci fi cal l ywai v e s s o v e r e i g n i mmun i t y . ” 1 Pa. C ons . St at
. § 2310. T he s t at e as s embl yhas nots peci fi cal l yw ai ved im m u n ity f

o r A D E A v io latio n s, n o r a re su c h v io latio n s in c lu d e d in t he st atutoryexcep t i on s t o s ov erei gn i m m un i t y . S ee 42 P a. C on s. St at
. § 8522 ( l i s t i ng “ac t s bya C om m onw eal t h party ” that“may r es ul ti n t he i m pos i t i on of l i abi l i t yon the C om m onw ea lt h ” for w h ich “ th e d e f

e n se o f so v e re ig n im m u n itysh a ll n o t b e ra ise d to cl ai m s fordamages ”) ; s ee al s o C hi t t i s t er v. D ep’ t of C m t y . & E con. D e v ., 2 2 6 F .3 d 2 2 3 , 2 2 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (a c k n o w led g in g th a t, w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f

th e to rt c laim s f

o r d a m a g e s in sta te c o u rt listed in § 8 5 2 2 , “ th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s im m u n ity is o th e rw is e in ta c t” ). A s a r es ul t , w e concl ude t hat t he C om m onw eal t h pos s es s es i mm u n i t yf

r o m l i a b i l i t yr e g a r d i n g c l a i ms u n d e rth e ADE A.

I V. W e n o w tu rn to w h e th e r, in th is c a se , the C o m m o n w e a lth h a s w a iv e d : (1 ) its im m u n ityf r o m s u it i n f

e d e ra l co u rt; o r (2 ) its i m m u n i t y f

r o m l i a b i l i t y. A

. A St at e’ s i m m uni t yfr om s ui t i s not abs ol ut e. C ongr es s m ay abr ogat e a St at e’ s s over ei gn i m m uni t y“i n the exe r ci s e of i t s pow er t o enfor ce t he F our t eenth A m endment , ” and a St at e m aycons ent 2627, 639 ( 1999)

. W hi l e the A D E A does co n tai n a cl ear c o n g r e s s i o n a l s t a t e m e n to f i n t e n tt o a b r o g a t e t h e S t a t e s ’ i m m u n i t y, t hi s abr ogat i on exce eded C ongr es s ’ § 5 pow er s . See K i m el v. Fl a. B d. of R egent s , 528 U

. S. 62 ( 2000)

. T hus , t he A D E A “d[oe s ] not v a lid lya b ro g a te th e S tate s’ so v e re ig n im m u n ity to su its b yp riv a te i ndi vi dual s . ” I d. at91.

P e n n sy lv a n ia h a s w ith h e ld its c o n se n t to su it i n 3 fede r al cour t
. 42 Pa. C ons . S tat
. § 8521( b)

. See Laska r i s v. T h o rnb u rgh , 6 6 1 F

. 2 d 2 3 , 2 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 1 ).

8 to su it b ym a k in g a c lea r d e c lar a tio n th a t it in ten d s to su b m it i tse lf to f e d e r a l c o u rt ju risd ictio n . C o ll. S a v . B a n k v . F la. P re p a id 3 P o stseco n d aryE d u c. E x p en se B d

. , 5 2 7 U

. S

. 6 6 6 , 6 7 0 , 6 7 6 (19 9 9 ). Fur t herm or e, a St at e mayw ai ve i t s i m m uni t yfr om s ui tby i nvoki ng fede r al cour tj ur i s di ct i on vol unt ar i l y . I d. at675. T he v o lu n ta ryinv o ca ti o n p ri n ciple e m erg ed in ea rl yS u p rem e C o u rt j ur i s prudence and w as l at er exami ned i n L api des

. See G ar dnerv. N e w Je rse y , 3 2 9 U .S . 5 6 5 (1 9 4 7 ) (f in d in g w a iv e r o f

E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ityw h e re a S tate v o lu n tar ilya p p e a re d in bankrupt cycour t t o fi l e a cl ai m agai ns t a comm on fund) ; G unt erv. A t l

. C oas tL i ne R

. R

. C o. , 200 U

. S. 273, 284 ( 1906) ( s t at i ng gen eral l yt hat “w here a S t at e vo l un t ari l y beco m es a partyt o a cau se and s ubm i t s i t s r i ght s forj udi ci al det erm i nat i on, itw i l l be bound t her ebyand ca nnotes cape the r es ul tof i t s ow n vol unt aryactby i nvoki ng t he pr ohi bi t i ons of the El eventh A m endment ”) ; C l ark v. B arn ard , 1 0 8 U

. S

. 4 3 6 (18 8 3 ) (ho lding that a S tat e’s v o lun tary in ter v e n tio n in a f

e d e ra l co u rt a c tio n to a ss e rt its o w n c laim co n sti tuted a w aive r of it s E leve n th A m en d m en t i m m u n ity ). L o m b a rd o a r g u e s th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth w a iv e d its im m u n ity fr om s ui ti n fede r al cour t“by vol unt ar i l yr emovi ng t hi s m att erfr om s t at e t o fede r al cour t
. ” A ppel l ee Br. at9. W e agr ee. W e beg i n w i t h t he fact s o f L apides. In 200 1, P aul Lap i des, a pr ofes s or empl oy ed by t he G eor gi a s t at e uni ver s i t ys y s t em, fi l ed a n a c tio n a g a in st th e u n iv e rsitysy ste m ’s B o a rd o f R e g e n ts in sta te c o u rt. G e o rg ia h a d a lre a d y co n se n ted to su it i n its o w n c o u rtsG e o rg ia c laim e d th a t it a g re e d to re m o v e in o rd e r to 4 pr ovi de i t s co- defe ndant s , the off i ci al s s ued i n thei rper s onal capac i t i es, w i t h the “gen erous i nter l ocu t oryapp eal provis i on s” avai l abl e onl yi n fede r al court
. L api des , 5 3 5 U

. S

. at621. D e f e n d a n ts h a v e n o t p ro f

f e re d a n e x p la n a tio n f

o r re m o v in g th is c a s e to f e d e ra l c o u rt
.

9 r egar di ng t he type of c l ai m s L api des br ought

. G eor gi a’ s A t t orney G ener al r emoved t he ca s e t o fede r al di s t r i ctcourtand s ought d ism issal on E leve n th A m en d m en t gro u n d s. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt hel d unani m ous l yt hatG eor gi a’ s r emoval fr om sta t e t o fede r al c o u rt w a iv e d its E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity , b u t lim ited its hol di ng “t o t he cont ext of st at e- l aw cl ai m s , i n r es pect t o w hi ch the S tat e h as e x p lic itly w a iv e d im m u n ityfro m stat e-c o u rt pr ocee di ngs . ” 535 U

. S. at 617. T he C our tdi d notrul e on w hether vol unt aryr emoval aff

ect ed i m m uni t yfr om fede r al l aw cl ai m s , as La p i d e s ’ o n l y f

e d e r a l c l a i m a g a i n s t Ge o r g i a a r o s e u n d e r4 2 U. S

. C. § 1983 and had t o be di s m i s s ed, s i nce a St at e i s not a “p ers on” agai ns tw hom a § 1983 cl ai m for m oney damages m aybe as s ert ed. I d. De s p i t e e x p r e s s l yl i m i t i n g i t s h o l d i n g t o s t a t e - l a w c l a i ms fr o m w h i c h i mmun i t yh a s b e e n e x p l i c i t l ywai v e d , t h e La p i des C o u rt u til ize d b ro a d lan g u a g e re g a rd in g w a iv e r a n d re m o v a l. F irst, th e C o u r t r e f

e re n c e d th e “ g e n e ra l p rin c ip le” th a t im m u n ityis w aive d w h ere a S tat e v o lun tari lyinv o k e s a f ed era l cou rt ’s j ur i s di ct i on. 535 U

. S. at 620. T he C our tconcl uded that“r emoval i s a form of vol unt aryi nvocat i on of a f eder al court ’ s j ur i s di ct i on su f f icie n t to w a iv e th e S tate ’s o th e rw ise v a lido b jec tio n to l i t i gat i on of a mat t er( her e of s t at e l aw ) i n a fe der al forum , ” i d. at 624, expl ai ni ng that “[a ] rul e of f eder al l aw t hatfi nds w ai ver thro u g h a state a tt o rne yg en era l’ s inv o ca ti o n o f f ed era l- co u rt j ur i s di ct i on avoi ds inc ons i s t encyand unfa i r nes s . ” I d. at623. G eor gi a’ s al l egedl y“beni gn” mot i ve forr emoval d i dn o ti nfl uence 4 th e C o u rt’s d e c isio n , sin c e “ a d o p t[ in g ] [ G e o rg ia’ s] E lev e n th A m endmentpos i t i on w oul d perm i tSt at es t o achi eve unf ai rt act i cal advant ages , i f noti n t hi s cas e, then i n other s . ” I d. at621. A ppl y i ng t hes e pr i nci pl es t o t he mat t erathand, w e conc l udeSi nce 200 2 , s e v e r a l ap p e a l s c o u rt s h a v e a d d r es s ed the 5 sc o p e o f L a p id e s’ w a iv e r-b y -re m o v a l r u le. T h e C o u rts o f A p p e a ls f o rt h e Ni n t h a n d T e n t h Ci r c u i t s h a v e t a k e n a b r o a d v i e w, ext endi ng t h e rule to al l s t at e and f eder al cl ai m s . See Em buryv. K i ng, 361 F. 3d 562 ( 9th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ); E s t es v. W y o. D ep’ tof T ra n sp ., 3 0 2 F .3 d 1 2 0 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e C o u rts o f A p p e a ls fort he Four t h, Seventh, and D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a C i r cui t s l i m i tt he w a iv e r p r in c ip le to c a se s in w h ich a S tate w o u ld o b tain a n u n f a ir advant age byenj oy i ng i m m uni t yi n fede r al cour tthati tw oul d not h a v e o th e rw ise c o m m a n d e d in sta te c o u rt. S e e S tew a rt v . N o rth C ar ol i na, 393 F. 3d 484 ( 4th C i r . 2005) ; O m os egbon v. W el l s , 335 F

. 3d 66 8 (7t h C i r. 20 03 ); W at t ers v. W ashi ng t on M et ro. T ransit A ut h. , 295 F. 3d 36 ( D

. C

. C i r . 2002)

. T he C our t of A ppeal s forthe Fi fth C ir cui thas di s t i ngui s hed betw een i m m uni t yfr om s ui tand i m m uni t yfr om l i abi l i t y , M ey er s ex r el

. B enzi ng v. T exas , 410 F. 3d 236 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) , r eh’ g and r eh’ g en banc deni ed, 454 F. 3d 503 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), an d th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r t h e F irst C irc u it favor s an ana l ogous t heory . See N ew H ampshi r e v. R amsey , 366 F. 3d 1 (1st C i r . 2004) ; R hode I s l and D ep’ tof Envt l

. M gm t
. v. U n it ed S tat es, 30 4 F

. 3 d 3 1 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ).

10 th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lt h w a iv e d it s E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t i m m u n ity fr om pr ivate sui ti n a fe der al forum w hen i tvol unt ar i l yr emoved t h i s c a s e t o f

e d e r a l c o u r t
. Wh e n a S t a t e , f a c i n g s u i ti n i t s o wn 5 cour t s , purpos eful l yr eques t s a fe der al forum , itexpr es s es a cl ear in ten t to w a iv e im m u n ityf ro m su it. W h ile L a p id e s lim ited its h o ld in g to sta te- law c laim s f o r w h ich im m u n ity w a s w a iv e d in sta te court , i tal s o t eac hes that , gener al l y , “r emoval i s a form of v o lu n tar yin v o c a tio n o f a f e d e ra l co u rt’s ju risd ic tio n su f f icie n t to w ai ve the St at e’ s ot herw i s e val i d obj ect i on t o l i t i gat i on of a mat t er

. . . i n a fe der al forum . ” 535 U

. S. at1646. I n E s t es , t he C our tof A ppeal s for t he T enth C i r cui thel d that a St at e’ s r emoval t o fede r al cour tof a c as e i ncl udi ng bot h s t at e l aw a n d f e d e ra l law c laim s c o n stitu ted a w a iv e r o f E le v e n th A m endm enti m m uni t yforbot h cat egor i es of cl ai m s . 302 F. 3d at 1 2 0 4 -0 6 . S im ilarly , in E m b u ry , th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e N in th C irc u it d e ter m in e d th a t th e w a iv e r-b y -re m o v a l ru le e sta b lish e d inW hi l e notdet erm i nat i ve i n L api des or i n t he ca s e at 6 hand, w e not e that t he Supr eme Court ’ s j ur i s prudence has notbeen ent i r el ycons i s t enti n t he vi ew thatthe E l eventh A m endment r es t r i ct s s ubj ect m at t er j ur i s di ct i on. L i ke s ubj ect m att er ju risd ictio n , th e C o u rt p e rm its a n E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity cl ai m t o b e r ai s ed fort he fi r s tt i m e on appe al

. See Edel m an, 415 U

. S. at677- 78. B utt he abi l i t y of S t at es t o w ai ve thei ri m m uni t yor c o n s e n t to su it, a n d th e lac k o f a re q u ire m e n t th a t f

e d e ra l co u rts r ai s e El eventh A m endmenti m m uni t ydefe ct s s ua s pont e, m ay re se m b le p e rso n a l ju risd ictio n re q u ire m e n ts. S e e , e .g ., E rw in C hemer i ns ky , Feder al J ur i s di ct i on § 7. 1 ( 4th ed. 2003) ( des cr i bi ng s over ei gn i m m uni t yas a l i m i ton fede r al j udi ci al pow erand not i ng t hat“[t ] he S upr eme C our t
. . . has notbeen c om pl et el ycons i s t ent i n tr ea ti ng t he El eventh A m endmentas a r es t r i ct i on on s ubj ect m at t er jur i s di ct i on”) ; E r i c S. J ohns on, N ot e, U ns heathi ng A l exande r ’ s Sw or d: L a p id e s v . B o a rd o f R e g e n ts o f th e U n iv e rsity Sy s t em of G eor gi a, 51 A m . U

. L

. R ev . 1051, 1060- 62 ( 2002) (a rg u in g th a t p e rso n a l ju risd ictio n -lik e f e a tu re s o f

E le v e n th A m endmenti m m uni t yundermi n e th e Sup r e me C our t ’ s as s um pt i on t hatE l eventh A m en d m ent i m m uni t yr es t s on s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on) ; cf. W i s . D ep’ t of C orr . v. Schact , 524 U

. S. 381, 393- 9 8 (1 9 9 8 ) (K e n n e d y , J ., c o n c u rrin g ) (su g g e stin g ty in g th e E lev e n th A m en d m en t t o the C o u rt ’s pe rson al j u ri sd ict ion juri sp rud en ce ).

11 L a p id e s a p p lied to b o th sta te a n d f e d e r a l c laim s, a s w e ll as to claim s ass erted af

ter rem o v al. 3 6 1 F

. 3 d at 56 4

. T h e E m b u ryco u rt o b se rv e d th a t “[ n ]o th in g in th e re a so n in g o f L a p id e s s u p p o rts l i m i t i ng t he w ai vert o . . . s t at e l aw cl ai m s o nl y , ” as i tw oul d be i l l ogi cal fora S t at e t o cons entt o havi ng s t at e l aw ques t i ons det erm i n ed bya fe der al cour t“w her e fe der al j ur i s di ct i on cannot e v e n b e o b ta in e d b u t f

o r f e d e ra l c la im s a s s e rt e d in th e s a m e c a s e ,” y e to p p o s e f

e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth o s e f e d e r a l c l a i m s . I d

. We agr ee. 6 W e hol d t hatt he C om m onw eal t h’ s r emoval of fe der al

- l aw c laim s to f

e d e ra l co u rt e f

f e c ted a w a iv e r o f

im m u n ity f

ro m su it i n f e d e ra l co u rt. O u r h o ld in g to d a yd o e s n o t af f e c t a S tate ’s a b ili tyto ra ise so v e re ig n im m u n ityw h e n it i s in v o lu n tar ilyb r o u g h t in to f e d e r a l c o u r t
. I ti s o n l y wh e n a S t a t e r e mo v e s f e d e r a l

- l a w c l a i msL om bar do assert s thatthe C om m onw eal t h has 7 w ai ved thi s cl ai m , s i nce i tdi d notr ai s e the mat t eri n the D ist ri ct C our t
. A ppel l ee Br. at18. See H uberv. T ay l or , 469 F. 3d 67, 74 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “G ener al l y , fai l ur e t o r ai s e an i s s ue i n t he D i s t r i ct C o u rtresu lt s in it s w aive r on ap p ea l. ”). L o m b a rd o ’s a rg u m e n t f a ils beca us e the i s s ue w as i ndeed be for e the D i s t r i ctC our t , des pi t e the fac tt hatt he courtdi d nots peci fi cal ly addre s s var i ous as pect s of s t at e s over ei gn i m m uni t y . I n any event , i s s ues of s t ate so v erei gn i m m uni t ym ay be r ai s ed atanyt i m e, i ncl udi ng “fort he fi r s tt i m e on appea l even i f the s t at e def ended the mer i t s of t he s ui ti n the di s t r i ct cour t
. ” C h it ti s t er , 226 F. 3d at227 ( ci t i ng E del m an, 415 U

. S. at 6 7 7 -7 8 ).

12 fr om s t at e cour t t o a fede r al forum that i t “s ubm i t s i t s r i gh ts for ju d icia l d e te r m in a ti o n ,” G u n te r , 2 9 0 U .S . a t 2 8 4 , a n d u n e q u iv o c a lly i nv ok es the jur i sdi ct i on of the fede ral cou rt s. B. A s s t at ed pr evi ous l y , the C om m onw eal t h pos s es s es i m m uni t y from l i abi l i t yunder1 Pa. C ons . St at
. § 2310, s ave f or c e rta in s p e c if

ica llye n u m e ra ted to rt c laim s f o r d a m a g e s in sta te cour t
. S ee 4 2 P a. C ons t
. St at
. § 8522. T he ques t i on w e now c o n sid e r is w h e th e r th e C o m m o n w e a lth n o n e th e les s w a iv e d its im m u n ityf

ro m liab ili tyb yre m o v in g th is c a se to f e d e ra l co u rt. 7 A St a t e ma y wai v e i t s i mmun i t y f r o m l i a b i l i t y , b u t s uch a w ai ver m us t be expr es s and unequi vocal

. See C ol l

. Sav. B ank, 527 U

. S. a t68 0; Pe nn hu r s t St a t e Sc h. & H os p. v. H a l de r man, 46 5 U. S. 89 , 9 9 (1984). T he Supr eme C our thas not ed thatan ef fec t i ve w ai verof s over ei gn i m m uni t y , l i ke the w ai verof other C ons t i tut i onal l y - pr ot ect ed r i ght s , m us ti nvol ve the “‘ i nt ent i onal r el i nqui s hm entorabandonment of a know n r i ght

. . . . ’ ” C ol l

. Sav. B ank, 527 U

. S

. at682 ( quot i ng J ohns on v. Z erbs t , 304 U

. S. 458, 4 6 4 (1 9 3 8 )). A c c o rd in g ly , w e m u st “ in d u lg e e v e ryre a so n a b le pr e s umpt i on a ga i ns t w a i ve r . ” A e t na I ns . Co. v. K e nn e dy , 30 1 U. S. 3 8 9 , 3 9 3 (1 9 3 7 ).W e h a v e d e ter m in e d th a t a re m o v in g S tate w a iv e s its 8 E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni t yfr om s ui ti n a fe der al forum but r et ai ns i t s i m m uni t yfr om l i abi l i t y . Sever al cour t s of appe al s have di ffe r ed i n t he l abel gi ven t o the i m m uni t yr et ai ned bya r emovi ng St at e, s epa rate and apa r tfr om the El eventh A m endment

. See M e y e rs, 4 1 0 F .3 d a t 2 5 0 , 2 5 2 -5 3 (re jec tin g th e th e o ryth a t sta te s over ei gn i m m uni t yi s compri s ed of t w o s epar at e i m m uni t i es fr om su it– in h e re n t im m u n ityf ro m p riv a te s u it w h ich m a y b e a ss e rte d in a n yc o u rt a n d E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t f o ru m im m u n ity f

ro m su it i n federal c o ur t–and conc l udi ng thata St at e “e nj oy s tw o ki nds of im m u n it y t h a t it m a y c h o o se to w a iv e o r re tain sep ara tel y

– im m u n ity from su itan d im m u n ityfro m li ab il ity ”); St ew ar t , 393 F. 3d at487- 88 ( di s t i ngui s hi ng t he “r el at ed butnot id e n tica l” c o n c e p ts o f

E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n itya n d sta te s over ei gn i m m uni t y and defi ni ng t he for m er as “but an exa m pl e” of the l at t er “as it a p p l i es t o suit s fi l ed in federal cou rtagainst uncons ent i ng St at es by ci t i zens of others t at es ”) ; R amsey , 266 F. 3d a t 1 5 (d isc u ss in g “ tw o in d e p e n d e n t as p e c ts o f im m u n ity f ro m su it: i m m uni t yfr om s ui ti n a fe der al fo rum . . . and s ubs t ant i ve im m u n ityf

ro m liab ili ty ,” n o tin g th a t “a sta te m a yw a iv e its im m u n ityf

ro m su b sta n tiv e liab ili tyw ith o u t w a iv in g its im m u n ity f ro m su it i n a f

e d e ra l f o ru m ,” a n d a ss u m in g , a rg u e n d o , th a t a S tate m ayw ai ve fe der al forum i m m uni t yw i t houtw ai v ing s ubs t ant i ve l i abi l i t ys i nce t he Supr eme Court“thus farhas notaddr es s ed” the i s s ue) ; O m os egbon , 3 3 5 F. 3d at671 ( r efe r r i ng t o s t at e s over ei gn i m m uni t yl aw and hol di ng that s i nce I ndi ana s t at e i m m uni t yrul es w oul d have a l l ow ed a s t at e courtto h ea rt he pl ai nt i ff’ s s t at e- l aw c o n tra c t cla im s, a f

e d e ra l c o u rt c o u ld d o th e sa m e w h e re th e S tate r emoved t he ca s e to feder al cour t ) ; W att er s , 295 F. 3d at42 n. 13 (h o ld in g th a t th e W a sh in g to n M e tro p o lit a n T ra n sit A u th o rity ( W M A T A ) , an ent i t y cr eat ed by an i nt er s t at e compactbetw een the D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a, M ary l and, and V i r gi ni a, and t he r eci pi entof t he r es pect i ve s o v er ei gn i m m uni t yof ea ch s i gnat ory , r et ai ned i m m uni t yupon i t s r emoval t o fede r al cour t of an ac t i on t o enfor ce an att or ney ’ s l i en and s t at i ng that“[a ] s t he W M A T A s i gnat o ri es
13 W e ho ld th at w h il e vo lun tary rem o v al w aive s a S tat e’s i m m uni t yfr om s ui t i n a fede r al forum , the r emovi ng St at e r et ai ns a ll d e f e n se s it w o u ld h a v e e n

jo y e d h a d th e m a tter b e e n lit ig a ted in stat e co u rt , inclu d ing im m u n ity fro m li ab il ity . T h e S u p rem e C o u rt 8h a v e n o twa i v e d i mm u n i t yf r o m a t t o r n e y ’ s l i e n s i n th e i ro wn co u rt s, the n arro w h o lding o f L ap ides d o es n o t app lyto this ca se” ). W e u til ize th e ter m “ im m u n ityf ro m liab ili ty ,” a s th is c o n c e p t is cons i s t entw i t h L api des i n that i tpr ohi bi t s a St at e fr om cl ai m i ng im m u n ityf

ro m su it tw ice in th e sa m e c a se . It also b e st re p re se n ts our vi ew t hat w hi l e a r emovi ng St at e i nvokes fede ral j u r i s di ct i on and w ai ves i t s i m m uni t yfr om s ui t i n a fe der al forum , s uch w ai ver d o e s n o t p re v e n t th e S tate f ro m a ss e rtin g sta te s o v e re ig n im m u n ity a s p ro v id e d f

o r b yits o w n law a s a d e f e n se in f e d e ra l co u rt.

14 h a s s u g g e s te d th a t a S tate m a yw a iv e its im m u n ityf ro m liab ili ty w i t h outw ai vi ng i t s i m m uni t yfr om s ui ti n fede r al court , s ee A tasca d ero S tat e H o sp . v . S ca n lon , 4 7 3 U

. S

. 2 3 4 , 2 4 1 (19 8 5 ), s uper s ed e d i n o th e rr e s p e c t s byC i vi l R i ght s R emedi es E qual i zat i on A m endmentof 1986, 42 U

. S. C

. § 2 0 0 0 d -7; G r eatN

. I ns . C o. v. R ead, 322 U

. S. 47, 54 ( 1943) , and w e see no r eas on t o pr ohi bi tthe i nver s e. S ee , e. g. , M ey er s , 410 F. 3d at252- 53 ( concl udi ng that s t at e s over ei gn i m m uni t yi s compri s ed of t w o s epar at e and di s t i nct ki nds of i m m uni ty : i m m uni t yfr om s ui tand i m m uni t yfr om l i abi l i t y ; t hata St at e’ s “w ai verof one does not aff ect i t s enj oym ent of the other ”; and thati m m uni t y fr om l i abi l i t y i s notencompas s ed w i t hi n a St at e’ s i m m uni tyfr om s ui t ) ; R amsey , 366 F. 3d at15 ( s t at i ng, i n di ctum , t hat“a s t at e mayw ai ve i t s im m u ni t yfr om s ubs t ant i ve l i abi l i tyw i t houtw ai vi ng i t s i m m uni t yfr om s ui ti n a fede r al forum ”) ; J onathan R

. Si egel , W ai ver s of St at e Sover ei gn I m m uni t yand t he I deol ogy of the El eventh A m endment , 52 D uke L .J. 1 1 6 7 , 1 2 3 4 (2 0 0 3 ) (e x p lain in g th a t “s tate so v e re ig n im m u n ity h a s tw o in d e p e n d e n t as p e c ts: it is p a rtly a n im m u n ity f ro m su it i n a p a rticu lar f

o ru m (f e d e ra l co u rt) a n d p a rtly a su b sta n tiv e im m u n ity f ro m liab ili ty ,” a n d “ re m o v a l sh o u ld b e u n d e rsto o d to w a iv e o n ly forum i m m uni t y ”) ; s ee a l s o B o lden v. Sout heas t ern Pa. T r ans p. A ut h. , 953 F. 2d 807, 831 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( G r eenbe r g, J

. , di s s ent i ng) ( not i ng t hat a S t at e “can enj oy s t at e s over ei gn i m m uni t ypr ot ect i on and y etnotenj oyE l eventh A m endmenti m m uni t y ”) ; cf. C ar l os M anuel V azque z, Sover ei gn I m m uni t y , D ue Pr oces s , and The A l den Tri l ogy , 109 Y al e L. J

. 1927, 1930 ( 2000) ( as s ert i ng t hatthe Co u r ti n Al d e n a n d Co l l e ge Sa v i n g s “ r e j e c t e d th e ‘ f

o ru mal l oca ti on’ i nt erpr et at i on of the El eventh A m endment , and15 i m pl i ci t l yadopt ed .

. . t he ‘i m m uni t y fr om l i abi l i t y ’ i nt erpr et at i on, underw hi ch the s t at es ar e i m m une fr om bei ng s ubj ect ed t o damage l i abi l i ty to i ndi vi dual s ”) ( r efe r enci ng C ar l os M anual V azque z, W hati s E l ev ent h A m endmentI m m uni t y ?, 106 Y al e L. J

. 1683, 1700- 08 ( 1997) ( char act eri zing the “f orum - al l ocat i on” and “i m m uni t yfr om l i abi l i ty ” i nt erpr et at i ons of E l eventh A m endment im m u n ity)). C. B yaff i r m at i vel y select i ng a fe der al forum forl i t i gat i on of t hi s cas e, t he C om m onw eal t h i nvoked fe der a l c o u rtj u r i s d i c t i on and w ai ved i t s i m m un i t y from sui t
. S ee L apides, 53 5 U

. S

. at62 3 (al so sta tin g th a t w a iv e r o f

a S tate ’s E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity fro m su it “is a q u esti o n o f f ed era l l aw ”). I t did n o t, h o w ev er, wa i v e a n y d e f

e n s e s p r o v i d e d b yi t s o wn s o v e r e i g n i mm u n i t yl a w. In o u r f e d e ra l s y ste m , the S tate s re tain th e m e a su re o f so v e re ig n ty nece s s aryt o enac tand be pr ot ect ed bys uch l aw s . St at e s over ei gn i mmu n i t yp r e e x i s t e d t h e Co n s t i tu t i o n a n d r e ma i n s i n t a c tt o d a y . By pr ovi di ng fort he St at es ’ r et ent i on of t hi s pr er at i fi cat i on s over ei gnt y , “the s t ructur e of the C ons t i tut i on al l ow s forvar i at i on betw een the natur e and s t ructur e of e ach s t at e’ s i m m uni t i es fr om su it an d liab ili ty .” M e y e rs, 4 1 0 F .3 d a t 2 5 3 . A c c o rd in g ly , a S tate m ay est abl i s h i t s ow n i m m uni t yagai ns tl i abi l i t ythati s di s t i nct f ro m th e E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity f ro m su it en

jo y e d b ya ll t he St at es . W e hol d t hatt he C om m onw eal t h has i m m uni t yfr om l i abi l i t y r egar di ng cl ai m s underthe A D E A , and i thas notw ai ved s uch i m m uni t yi n t hi s cas e. V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l r ever s e the j udgm ent of the D i s t r i ctC ourtand r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o gr antthe C o m m o n w e a lth ’s m o tio n f o r p a rtial d ism iss a l.