FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 16, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 97 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 8- cv -0 10 25 -MEF- CSC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTHAND MENTALRETARDATION, Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 16 , 20 12 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, COX, Cir cu itJu dg e, an d GOLDBERG, Ju dg e. * GOLDBERG, Ju dg e:

Honora ble Richard W. Goldber g , United States Court of International TradeJ udg e, sitting by * designation.Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee the Uni te d S ta te s b ro ug htanact io n a ga in stDefen da nt App el la ntAlab am a Dep art m en t o f Men ta l Hea lt h (ADM H). The Un it edSta te s cl ai m edth atADMH vi ol at edth e Uni fo rm edServ ic es Em pl oym en t an d Ree m pl oym en t Ri gh ts Act o f 19 94 (USERRA), 3 8 U.S.C. 4 30 1 et seq . , when it fai le d t o re hi re l on gt im e em pl oyee Ro y

Ham il to n a fte r hi s s erv ic e in Iraqwith t he Alab am a Nat io na l Gu ard . ADMH m ov edto di sm is s t he cas e b as edon so ve rei gn imm un it y . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d ADMH’s m ot io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt

1 subs eque nt ly fou ndth atADMH ha d v io la te d USER RA by no t i m m ed ia te ly reh iri ng Ham il to n a fte r hi s re tu rnfro m Iraq . The d is tri ctco urt o rd eredADMH to pa y m or e th an$2 5,0 00 forth e wag es an d b en efi ts th atHam il to n l os t b ecau se of ADMH’s fai lu re t o c om

pl y with USER RA. ADMH pr es en ts th ree que st io ns forrev ie w inth is ap pe al : 1 ) whe th er so ve rei gn imm

un it y ba rs th e U.S. Depa rtment o f Ju st ic e’s (DOJ’s) a ct io n a ga in st ADMH; 2 ) whe th er the di st ric t co urt erredin fin di ng th atADMH vi ol at ed USERRA; an d 3 ) whe th er the di st ric t co urt erredin requi rin g ADMH t o p ay m on ey da m ag es to Ham il to n fo r vi ol at in g USER RA. Fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we h ol d t ha t ADMH i s n oten ti tl edto so ve rei gn imm un it y , andth atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err infin di ng th atADMH vi ol at ed

We use “Eleve nth Amendment immunit y” and “ sovere ign immunity” interc hang eably . 1 2USERRA an d was requi redto pa y m on ey da m ag es . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . I. BACK GROUND Ro y Ham il to n wo rk edfor

ADMH at t he J.S. Tarwa te r (“ Tarwat er”) Dev el op m en ta l Ce nt er i n M on tg om ery, Alab am a fro m 19 87 un ti l h is de pa rtu re fo r m il it ary se rv ic e in Decem be r 20 03 . In ad di ti on to hi s jo b a t Tarwa te r, Ham il to n was als o am em

be r of th e Alaba m a Nat io na l Gu ard . In Se pt em be r 20 03 , th e Nati on al Guar d n ot ifi edHam il to n t ha t h e wou ldbe de pl oyed t o Ir aqat t he en d o f Decem be r. Ham il to n i m

m ed ia te ly info rm edhi s s up erv is orof h is im pe nd in g de pl oym en t. Inth e fal l o f 20 03 , ADMH dec id edto clo se sev eral of i ts m en ta l h eal th cen te rs be cau se of f

in an ci al pro bl em s. Tarwat er was on e o f th e cen te rs sch edul ed to be clo se d. Ham il to n was wil li ng to rel oc at e to two of t he ot he r cen te rs in Mo nt go m ery, bu t h e d ecl in eda tr an sf er t o adi ffer en t p os it io n a t a f aci li ty in Tus cal oo sa . The tran sf

er t o Tu sc al oo sawas u nd es irabl e fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, i t wou ldha ve requi redHam il to n andhi s fa m il y to rel oc at e. Seco nd , alt ho ug h t he tra ns fer i nv ol ve d apro m ot io n, t he ne w po si ti on ’s lo ng er h ou rs wou ldhave pr ev en te d Ham il to n fr om ful fil li ng hi s fa m il y

res po ns ib il it ie s. WhenHam il to n de cl in edth e tr an sf

er t o Tu sc al oo sa , ADMH off ic ia ls rep eat ed ly ass ur edhi m th at th ey wou ldco nt in ue to see k o th er job s fo r hi m . 3On Dec em be r 23 , 20 03 , Ham il to n re cei ve d h is writ te n m il it ary or de rs for de pl oym en t. Tha t s am e d ay , he g av e co pi es of t he ord ers to hi s i m m ed ia te supe rv is or , th e p ers on ne l d ep art m en t atTarwat er, an d t he Tarwat er ad m in is tra ti on . Afte r worki ng on Decem be r 29 , 20 03 , Ham il to n d ep art edform il it ary le av e. On Ja nu ary 15 , 20 04 , ADMH perm an en tl y clo se d Tarwate r. InApri l 2 00 5, Ham il to n was ho no rab ly dis ch arg edfro m m il it ary se rv ic e an d h e returne d t o Al ab am a. Sh ortl y th erea fte r, he so ug htreem pl oym en t at ADMH. Forsev eral m on th s, Ham il to n a tt em pt edto ge t h is job ba ckby m ak in g rep eat edtel ep ho ne cal ls an d i n- pe rs on vi si ts . Even tu al ly, he was t ol d t ha t ADMH ha d l os t h is reco rd s an d s om eo ne wou ldcal l h im when th ey

lo cat edth e rec or ds . Howev er, n o o ne at ADM H con ta ct edHam il to n. He co nt in ue d t o p ur su e em pl oym en t atADMH. In Au gu st20 05 , Ham il to n t oo k ajob in th e p riv at e se ct or . In20 07 , Ham il to n a ga in co nt act edADMH, andADMH fin al ly reem pl oyed h im

at a h os pi ta l i n M on tg om ery in Aug us t 2 00 7. InFeb ru ary 20 08 , Hamil to n fi le d aco m pl ai ntun de r USERRA wi th th e U.S. Dep artm en t o f Lab or . The U.S. Dep art m en t o f Lab or ’s Veter an s’ Em pl oym en t an d Tra in in g S erv ic e d et erm in edth atHam il to n’s cl ai m ha d m eri t, an d h is cas e was refe rredto th e DOJ. InDecem be r 20 08 , th e Uni te d S ta te s s ue d ADMH u nd er USERRA. 4II . STANDARD OF REVIEW

Is su es of El ev en th Am en dm en t i m m un it y are que st io ns of l aw, whi ch we rev ie wde no vo . Na t’l

Ass ’n of Bds . of Pha rm. v. Bd

. of Rege nt s o f the Uni v. Sys. of Ga. , 63 3 F .3d12 97 , 13 13 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s factua l fi nd in gs un de r th e “ hi gh ly defer en ti al ” st an dardof c le ar erro r. Ren te ri aMar in v. Ag-Ma rt

Pro du ce , 53 7 F .3d13 21 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s. Id. II I. REL EVANT LAW USERRA, 3 8 U.S.C. § 43 01 et seq . , rep res en ts lo ng -s ta nd in g n at io na l po li cy in te nd edto en co ur ag e se rv ic e in th e arm edfor ces . USERRA requi res an em pl oyer to pro m

pt ly reem pl oy “ an y pe rs onwho se ab se nc e fro m a po si ti on of 2 em pl oym en t i s n eces si ta te d b y reas on of s erv ic e in th e u ni fo rm edservi ces .” 38 U.S.C. § 4 31 2( a) (2 00 6) . This requi rem en t ap pl ie s i f: ( 1) th e em pl oyee gi ve s pr op er n ot ic e to hi s emplo y er wh enlea vi ng ; (2 ) th e ab se nc e is forles s t ha n fi ve y ears ; an d (3 ) th e em

pl oyee ti m el y

ap pl ie s fo r ree m

pl oym en t upo n h is return. § § 43 12 (a)( 1) –( 3) , (e). If the em pl oyee m eet s t he se requi rem en ts , th e em pl oyer m us t o fferth e ve te ran eit he r th e p os it io n h e wou ldha ve he ldha d h is em pl oym en t n otbe en The statute’ s definition of “e mploy er” includes a State, its ag encie s, and its politi cal 2 subdivisions . 38 U.S.C. §§ 4303(4)(A) (iii), (14). 5in te rrupt edby mil it ary se rv ic e, or“ a p os it io n o f li ke sen io rity , st atus , andpa y .” §

43 13 (a)( 2) (A). The e m

pl oyee do es no t fo rfei t t hi s ri gh t t o re em pl oym en t ev enif th e em pl oyee tel ls th e em

pl oyer be fo re en te rin g s erv ic e th athe “ do es no t i nt en d t o se ekreem pl oym en t af

te r co m pl et in g s erv ic e.” 2 0 C .F.R. § 1 00 2.8 8. Bec au se th e so ve rei gn im m un it y qu es ti onin vo lv es anan al y si s o f th e le ve l of co nt ro l ex erci se d b y

th e g ov ern m en t dur in g l it ig at io n, i t i s i m po rta ntto un de rs ta ndth e p ro ces s b y whi ch th e Uni te d S ta te s b rin gs a USERRA ac ti on . If th e Sec ret ary of

Labo r is un ab le to res ol ve whathe be li ev es to be a m eri to rio us USERRA cl ai m , he m

us t n ot ify the form er em

pl oyee of hi s ri gh t t o s eekrel ie f in a jud ic ia l fo ru m . Se e 38 U.S.C. § 4 32 2( e). The form er em pl oyee m ay

th enaskth e Secr et ary to refe r th e m at te r to th e Att orne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s (AG). § 43 23 (a)( 1) . Fro m th atpo in t, the AG tak es co nt ro l o f th e li ti ga ti on on th e v et eran ’s be ha lf. If th e AG is “ reas on ab ly sati sf ie d” th at“ th e p ers on on who se be ha lf t he co m pl ai ntis refe rredis en ti tl edto th e ri gh ts or b en efi ts so ug ht ,” th e AG “ m ay ap pe ar o n b eh al f of

, andactas a tt orne y

for , th e p ers on onwho se be ha lf t he co m pl ai ntis subm it te d a ndco m m en ce an act io n fo r rel ie f un de r th is ch ap te r fo r su ch pe rs on .” Id. If a St at e is th e em pl oyer, th e act io n b ro ug htby the AG is br ou gh t “ in th e n am e o f th e Uni te d S ta te s as th e p la in ti ff i n t he act io n.” Id. Even 6whe n the Uni te d S ta te s i s t he pl ai nt iff , th e AG m ay

see k v ic ti m -s pe ci fic be ne fit s su ch as “ an y

lo ss of wa ge s o r be ne fit s s uf fere d b y reas on of s uc h e m

pl oyer’s fai lu re t o c om

pl y ” wit h USER RA. § 4 32 3( d) (1 )(C) . In s uc h acas e, th e

“ co m pe ns at io n s ha ll be he ldin a sp eci al de po si t ac co un t an d s ha ll be pa id , on or de r of th e Att orne y

Gene ral , di rect ly to t he pe rs on .” § 4 32 3( d) (2 )(B) . IV. DI SCUSSI ON A. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOES NOT BAR THE UNITED STAT ES FROM ENFORCING USERRA ADMH’s fir stco nt en ti on is th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin rul in g t ha t so ve rei gn imm

un it y do es no t b ar thi s s ui t. W e d is ag ree wi th ADMH, andho ld 3 th atAlab am a is no t en ti tl edto so ve rei gn imm un it y .

“ Ourfed eral syste m

is pre m is edonth e p rin ci pl e th atth e St at es po ss es s a ‘resi du ary an d i nv io labl e so ve rei gn ty.’ ” Ch ao v. Va. Dep ’t o f Tr an sp . , 29 1 F .3d 27 6, 2 80 (4t h C ir. 2 00 2) (qu ot in g Th e Fed eral is t No . 39 , at 2 58 (Ja m es Mad is on ) (I. Kramni cked . 19 87 )). One of t he pri nc ip al att rib ut es of thi s s ov erei gn ty is imm un it y : “ It i s i nh eren t i n t he na tu re o f so ve rei gn ty notto be am en ab le to su itof an in di vi du al

witho utit s co ns en t.” Pri nc ip al it y o f Mo na co v. Mis siss ip

pi , 29 2

Whether the United States c an sue a State to enforc e USERRA on behalf of a par ticular 3 veter an is a que stion of first impression for this Court. 7U.S. 31 3, 3 24 , 78 L. Ed. 12 82 , 12 86 –8 7, 5 4 S . Ct. 7 45 , 74 8 (1 93 4) (qu ot in g Th e

Fed eral is t No . 81 (Ham il to n) (em ph as is ad de d) ). If Ro y Ham il to n h adbe enth e p la in ti ff, itis un di sp ut edth atso ve rei gn imm un it y wou ldha ve ba rredhi s s ui t b ecau se a St at e can no t b e su edby an in di vi du al witho utit s co ns en t. Se e Pen nh ur st St at e S ch . &Hos p. v. Ha lderman , 46 5 U.S. 8 9, 1 00 , 10 4 S . Ct. 9 00 , 90 8, 7 9 L. Ed. 2 d 6 7, 7 8– 79 (19 84 ) (n ot in g t ha t, un le ss a St at e h as co ns en te d, t he Sta te is imm un e fro m su it s b ro ug htin fed eral co urt b y th e St at e’s own cit iz en s o r by cit iz en s o f ot he r St at es ); se e a ls o Bla tc hf or d v . Nat iv e Vil la ge of

No atak , 50 1 U.S. 7 75 , 78 1; 11 1 S . Ct. 2 57 8, 2 58 2, 11 5 L. Ed. 2 d 6 86 , 69 5; Se min ol e Tr ib e o f Fl . v. Flo ri da , 51 7 U.S. 4 4, 5 4, 1 16 S. Ct . 11 14 , 11 22 , 13 4 L. Ed. 2 d 2 52 , 26 5 (1 99 6) ; Alden v. Mai ne , 52 7 U.S. 7 06 , 72 9, 11 9 S . Ct. 2 24 0, 2 25 4, 1 14 L. Ed. 2d63 6, 6 62 (19 99 ). ADMH ackno wled ge s t ha t St at es do no t h av e imm un it y fro m fed eral -co urt su it s, b ro ug htan d c on tro ll edby the Uni te d S ta te s, s eek in g t o v in di cat e th e g en eral in te res ts of t he fed eral go ve rn m en t. Ap pe ll an t’s Br . 26 ; se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Mis siss ip pi , 38 0 U.S. 1 28 , 14 0– 41 , 85 S. Ct. 8 08 , 81 4– 15 , 13 L. Ed. 2d71 7, 7 25 (1 96 5) (“ [N]oth in g i n the [Elev en th Am en dm en t] or an y ot he r pr ov is io n o f th e Co ns ti tu ti on pre ve nt s o r ha s ev er b een ser io us ly sup po se d t o p rev en t a S ta te ’s be in g s ue d b y

th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th e Uni te d S ta te s i n t he pa stha s i n m an y cas es 8be enall owe d t o fi le su it s i n t hi s an d o th er co urts ag ai ns t St at es .”). It i s wel lse tt le d t ha t St at es “ su rren de redth ei r imm un it y fro m su itby the Fed eral Gov ern m en t” when th ey

rat ifi edth e Co ns ti tu ti on . Ch ao , 29 1 F .3dat 2 80 ; se e a ls o Uni te d Sta tes v. Te

xa s , 14 3 U.S. 6 21 , 64 4, 3 6 L. Ed. 2 85 , 12 S. Ct. 4 88 (18 92 ); Pri nc ip al it

y o f Mo na co , 29 2 U.S. at32 9, 5 4 S . Ct. at75 1, 7 8 L. Ed. at12 89 ; Alden , 52 7 U.S. at75 5– 56 , 11 9 S . Ct at22 67 , 14 4 L. Ed. 2 d a t 6 79 . Howev er, ADMH co nt en ds th atHam il to n, an d n otth e Uni te d S ta te s, i s t he real pl ai nt iff

in th is laws ui t. Thu s, ADMH cl ai m s t ha t the su itis fun ct io na ll y in di st in gu is habl e fro m

a su itbro ug htby an in di vi du al . ADMH argu es th at Alab am a h as no t co ns en te d t o s ui t b y anin di vi du al an d t he refo re Co ng res s m us t be trying to ab ro ga te th e St at e’s imm un it y th ro ug h USER RA, in vi ol at io n o f Se min ol e Tr ib e . 51 7 U.S. at72 –7 3, 1 16 S. Ct. at11 31 –3 2, 1 34 L. Ed. 2dat 27 7– 78 . In Se min ol e Tr ib e , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t the Elev en th Am en dm en t pr ev en ts co ng res si on al au th or iz at io n o f su it s b y pri va te pa rti es ag ai ns t un co ns en ti ng Sta te s. Id. Howev er, USERRA g iv es th e fed eral go ve rn m en t— an d no t i nd iv idua ls —t he rig htto su e St at es in fed eral co urt t o e nf or ce fe de ral law. USERRA d oe s n otpu rp ort t o abr og at e so ve rei gn im m un it y an d t he refo re d oe s n ot vi ol at e Se min ol e Tr ib e . Id.

9ADMH m ai nt ai ns th atth e DOJ s ho ul d n otbe all owe d t o s eekvi ct im sp eci fic rel ie f fro m

ADMH forHam il to n’s b en efi t. Acco rd in g t o ADMH, USERRA i s a “ tra ns paren t at te m ptby Con gr es s . . . to ev ad e th e Supr em e Co urt’s de ci si on . . . in Se min ol e Tr ib e by m ak in g t he Uni te d S ta te s the no m in al pl ai nt iff in USERRA act io ns th atare, i n s ub st an ce, n o d iff eren t fr om

on es in whi ch th e in di vi du al serve s as th e n om in al pl ai nt iff .” App el la nt ’s Br. at34 . ADMH at te m

pt s t o e va de est ab li sh edpre ced en t t ha t s ov erei gn imm un it y do es no t ap pl y

by argu in g t ha t t hi s l aws ui t i s es se nt ia ll y a pr iv at e su it , whi ch is subjec t t o s ov erei gn imm un it y . ADMH argu es th atHam il to n i s t he pl ai nt iff “ in subs ta nc e rat he r th anform ” an d thu s h is cla im s ag ai ns t ADMH m us t b e b arre d. App el la nt ’s Br. at29 . ADMH foc us es on th e ro le of the AG inact in g a s t he in di vi du al ’s “ at to rn ey .” It s tre ss es th atth is m ean s tha t t he in di vi du al , andno t t he DOJ, h as co nt ro l o ve r th e li ti ga ti on . App el la nt ’s Br. at33 . ADMH rel ie s o n NewHamp sh ir e v. Lo uisi an a forth e p ro po si ti on th at , in ev al ua ti ng whet he r a s ta te is en ti tl edto so ve rei gnimm un it y , cou rts m

us t l oo k t o subs ta nc e rat he r th anform to de te rm in e who th e p la in ti ff i s. 1 08 U.S. 76 , 2 S. Ct . 17 6, 2 7 L. Ed. 6 56 (18 83 ). In NewHamp sh ir e , th e Co urt h el d t ha t a S ta te ret ai ne d i ts so ve rei gn imm un it y when su edby ano th er St at e th atis on ly nom in al ly a pla in ti ff an d the 10su in g S ta te do es no t h av e anin de pe nd en t i nt eres t i n t he cas e. 10 8 U.S. at88 –8 9, 2

S. Ct . at 1 82 , 27 L. Ed. at 6 61 . In tha t ca se , Lou is ia naha d d efau lt edon bo nd s own edby N ew Ham

ps hi re an d New Yo rkcit iz en s. Id . The Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t ba rredth e in di vi du al cit iz en s fr om su in g Lo ui si an a d ire ct ly. New Yorkan d New Ham ps hi re p as se d l eg is la ti onto cir cu m ve ntth e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t’s b arri er. Id. The t wo St at es pa ss edst atut es all owi ng cit iz en s t o a ss ig n t he ir c la im s t o t he St at e, pr ov id edth atth e ci ti zen s p ai d a ll of t he li ti ga ti on ex pe ns es . Id . Whe n ci ti zen s as si gn edth ei r cl ai m s t o t he Sta te , New Yorkan d New Ham ps hi re at te m pt edto su e Lou is ia naas t he na m edpl ai nt iff in th e cas e. Id. The Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t, b ecau se New Yorkan d New Ham ps hi re d idno t h av e an in de pe nd en t i nt eres t i n t he cas e an d wer e m erel y att em pt in g t o s ub ve rt t he Elev en thAm en dm en t t o b en efi t t he ir c it iz en s, Lo ui si an a ret ai ne d i ts so ve rei gn imm un it y . Id. at 9 0, 2 S. Ct. at18 3, 2 7 L.Ed . at 6 62 . Ina la te r cas e, th e Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he co nt ro ll in g co ns id erat io n i n NewHamp sh ir e “ de riv edit s fo rce f ro m th e fac t t ha t the Sta te was no t s eek in g areco ve ry

in it s o wn i nt eres t, as di st in gu is he d fr om th e ri gh ts an d in te res ts of t he in di vi du al s wh o wer e th e rea l b en efi ci ari es .” Okla ho ma exrel . Jo hn so n v . Coo k, 30 4 U.S. 3 87 , 39 3, 5 8 S . Ct. 9 54 , 95 7, 8 2 L. Ed. 1 41 6, 1 41 9 (1 93 8) (fo ll owi ng NewHamp sh ir e an d e xp la in in g t he “un de rlyin g p oi ntof t he 11de ci si on ”). Lik ewis e, ADMH as se rts th atth e g ov ern m en t i s “ no t s eek in g a

reco ve ry in it s o wn i nt eres t,” b utis m erel y su in g fo r th e p riv at e b en efi t an d in te res t o f Ham il to n. Id

. ADMH’s rel ia nc e o n NewHamp sh ir e is m is pl aced . Two im po rta ntfact or s di st in gu is h t hi s ca se fro m NewHamp sh ir e . Firs t, the Uni te d S ta te s— an d n ot Ham il to n—ha s co nt ro l o ve r th e p ro se cu ti on of t he cas e. Seco nd , th e Uni te d S ta te s ha s an in de pe nd en t i nt eres t i n e nf or ci ng USERRA. In NewHamp sh ir e , th e Supr em e Co urt fo cu se d o n t he rel at iv e le ve ls of co nt ro l t ha t t he Sta te an d t he in di vi du al ex erci se d. Th e Co urt h el d t ha t s ov erei gn imm un it y ba rredsu itbe cau se “ whi le th e su it s ar e in th e n am es of t he Sta te s, the y are u nd er the actua l co nt ro l o f in di vi du al cit iz en s, an d a re p ro se cu te d a ndcarr ie d on alt og ethe r by andforth em .” 10 8 U.S. at89 , 2 S. Ct . at 1 82 , 27 L. Ed. at 6 61 . The Supr em e Co urt l is te d m an y fact or s t o d et erm in e th e in di vi du al ’s lev el of co nt ro l an d ro le as t he “pr om ot er an d . . . m an ag er o f th e su it .” Fo r ex am pl e, co urts m us t as se ss whet he r th e in di vi du al “pa y s t he ex pe ns es , is th e o nl y on e au th or iz edto co nc lu de a co m pr om is e, an d i f an y

m on ey is ev er co ll ect ed , [whe th er itgo es to th e in di vi du al ] wit ho utev enpa ss in g t hr ou gh . . . th e tr eas ury of t he St at e.” Id .

12Here, the su itis firm ly und er the co ntro l o f th e ex ecu ti ve bra nc h. Al th ou gh

ADMH fo cu se s o n the m ean in g o f th e wor d “ atto rn ey ” in th e st atut e, USERRA do es no t g iv e th e in di vi du al th e le ve l o f co nt ro l t ha t co nc ern edth e Supr em e Co urt in NewHamp sh ir e . Ham il to n h adli tt le co nt ro l, i f an y , aft er the Att orne y Gene ral acce pt edhi s s ui t. Fo r ex am pl e, th e DOJ d idno t s eekpe rm is si on to fil e th e la wsu it an d Ham il to n s ig ne d a n a gr eem en t s ta ti ng th atth e DOJ d idno t re pr es en t h im . Mo reo ve r, th e DOJ, an d n otHam il to n, h adth e ri gh t t o d eci de whet he r to set tl e th e cas e. Fin al ly, whe reas th e in di vi du al pa idall ex pe ns es in NewHamp sh ir e , her e,

“ [n ]o fees or c ou rt c os t m ay be ch arg edor t ax edag ai ns t” a ve te ran who se cas e is li ti ga te d b y

th e DOJ. 3 8 U.S.C. § 43 23 (h ). Cle arl y , th e U.S. go ve rn m en t, an d n ot Ham il to n, was in co nt ro l o f th is cas e. ADMH al so arg ue s tha t t he Uni te d S ta te s d oe s n otha ve th e requi si te in de pe nd en t i nt eres t i n t hi s s ui t b ecau se itso ug htrel ie f sp eci fic to Ham il to n. In 4 NewHamp sh ir e , th e Supr em e Co urt em ph as iz edth atth e St at e d idno t h av e an in te res t i n p ro se cu ti ng th e cas e. It n ot edth atth e St at e was “ no th in g m or e n orles s th ana m ere c ol le ct in g a ge nt ” fo r th e ci ti zen s wh o wer e th e o wne rs of t he bo nd s at is su e. 10 8 U.S. at89 , 2 S. Ct . at 1 82 , 27 L. Ed. at 6 61 . The DO J also sought a prospec tive injunction. Cl early , the Fe dera l Governme nt’s 4 interest in Alabama’s future compliance with USERRA is not a purely private inter est. See Garcia v. San Antonio Me tro. Trans it Auth. , 469 U.S. 528, 83 L . Ed. 2d 1016, 105 S. Ct. 1005 (1985). AD MH prese nts no issue relative to the injunctive r elief grante d except for the immunity issue we ha

ve re jected. 13Howev er, h ere, t he Uni te d S ta te s h as a si gn ifi can t i nt eres t i n p ro se cu ti ng th e

cas e in ord er t o e nf

or ce fe de ral law. As th e Supr em e Co urt n ot edin Se min ol e Tr ib e , on e o f th e im

po rta nt“ m etho ds of e ns ur in g t he Sta te s’ com pl ia nc e wit h fed eral law” is all owi ng th e DOJ t o “ br in g s ui t i n fe de ral co urt ag ai ns t a S ta te .” 51 7 U.S. at71 n.1 4, 1 16 S. Ct a t 1 13 1 n .14 , 13 4 L. Ed. 2 d a t 2 76 n.1 4. Fu rth er, i t i s wel l-s ettl edth atth e Uni te d S ta te s m ay ob ta in vi ct im -s pe ci fic rel ie f on be ha lf o f a p art ic ul ar i nd iv idua l wi th ou t o ffen di ng th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t. The Supr em e Co urt s ta te d i n Alden v. Mai ne th at : [t]he d i f f e r en ce be twee n a su it by th e Uni te d St at es on be ha lf of th e em pl oyees an d a su it by th e em pl oyee s i mpli cat es a ru le th at th e Nati on al Gov ern m en t m

us t it se lf de em th e cas e of su ffi ci en t im po rta nc e to take act io n ag ai ns t th e St at e; an d hi st ory , pr eced en t, an d th e st ru ctur e of th e Co ns ti tu ti on m ak e cl ear th at . . . St at es ha ve co ns en te d to th e su it s of th e fi rs t k in d b utno t o f th e se co nd . 52 7 U.S. at75 9– 60 , 11 9 S . Ct. at22 69 , 14 4 L. Ed. 2 d a t 6 82 . A nu m be r of ou r si st er ci rcu it s h av e reject edSta te s’ con te nt io ns th at la wsu it s b ro ug htby the Uni te d S ta te s o n b eh al f of sp eci fic vi ct im s ar e si m

pl y pr iv at e la wsu it s m as qu erad in g i n c os tu m e. Sp eci fic al ly, th e Fo urth Cir cu ithe ldth at“ whe re the imm ed ia te be ne fic ia rie s of th e Sec ret ary’ s s ui t ar e sp eci fic pri va te in di vi du al s, the Fed eral Gov ern m en t h as anin te res t i n e nf

or ci ng fed eral law, ev enas a ga in stth e St at es ,” an d t he refo re the Elev en thAm en dm en t d idno t b ar the laws ui t. Ch ao v. Va. Dep ’t o f Tr an sp . , 29 1 14F.3 d 2 76 , 27 8– 82 & n .4 (4 th Cir . 20 02 ); se e a ls o Un it ed St at es v. Mis s. Dep ’t o

f Pub . Sa fe ty, 32 1 F .3d49 5, 4 99 (5t h C ir. 2 00 3) (ho ld in g t ha t “ th e fed eral go ve rn m en t h as th e res po ns ib il it y to de te rm in e whe n i t i s i n t he publ ic in te res t t o su e to vi nd ic at e fed eral law v iavi ct im -s pe ci fic rel ie f” an d m ay su e a St at e to ob ta in rel ie f au th or iz edby the ADA with ou t v io la ti ng th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t); EEOC v. Bd. of

Su pe rv is or s f or th e Uni v. of

La . Sys . , 55 9 F .3d27 0, 2 74 (5t h C ir. 20 09 ) (“ The Supr em e Co urt . . . has reco gn iz edth atth e EEOC pl ay s an in de pe nd en t p ub li c in te res t ro le th atall ows itto see k v ic ti m -s pe ci fic rel ie f—e ve n whe n s uc h re li ef co ul d n otbe pu rs ue d b y th e em pl oyee . . .”); Bd. o

f Reg en ts of

th e Uni v. of W is . Sys . , 28 8 F .3d29 6, 3 00 –0 1 (7 th Cir . 20 02 ) (h ol di ng th atso ve rei gn imm un it y di d n otba r a l aws ui t re ga rd le ss of t he rel ie f so ug htby the EEOC); Ky. Ret. S ys . , 16 F. App ’x 44 3, 4 48 (6t h C ir. 2 00 1) (reject in g t he Sta te ’s arg um en t t ha t th e EEOC’s act io n, s eek in g re li ef fo r a s pe ci fic Sta te em pl oyee, m erel y

di sg ui se d a pr iv at e la wsu itan d was th us pro hi bi te d b y th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t). Here, the Uni te d S ta te s h as “ de em edth e cas e o ne of s uf fic ie ntim po rtanc e to ta ke act io n a ga in st ” ADMH to en fo rce t he fed eral law o n Ham il to n’s b eh al f. Alden , 52 7 U.S. at76 0, 1 19 S. Ct. at22 69 , 14 4 L. Ed. at68 2. Th e Uni te d S ta te s ha s a c le ar an d s ub st an ti al in te res t i n e nf or ci ng USERRA to ach ie ve th e la w’ s g oa l of en co ur ag in g s erv ic e in th e arm edfor ces . There fo re, we aff irm th e d is tri ct 15co urt’s d eci si on th atElev en th Am en dm en t s ov erei gn imm un it y do es no t b ar the la wsu it . B. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN DETE RMI NING THAT ADMH VIOLATED THE REEMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS OF USERRA On ap pe al , ADMH arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt fa il edto m ak e ad equa te fin di ng s o f fac t as requi redby Fed. R. Ci v. P. 5 2. Ru le 52 requi res th atth e tr ia l co urt “ fin d t he fact s s pe ci al ly andst at e se parat el y it s co nc lu si on s o f la w th ereo n.” ADMH cl ai m s t ha t a r em an d i s n eces sary be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t sp eci fic al ly findth atHam il to n h ad , infact , res ig ne d. We di sa gr ee an d fi ndth ata rem an d i s n otne ces sa ry . A tri al co urt’s fi nd in gs m us t b e su ffi ci en tl y

de ta il edto gi ve anap pe ll at e co urt a c le ar u nd ers ta nd in g o f th e an al yti cal pro ces s b y whi ch th e fi nd in gs were reac he d. Se lf

v.Gre at La kes Dred

ge &Dock

Co . , 83 2 F .2d15 40 , 15 49 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). [A] rem an d i s n otrequi redif aco m pl et e u nd ers ta nd in g o f th e is su es is po ss ib le in th e ab se nc e o f se pa rat e fi nd in gs an d i f th ere i s a su ffi ci en t b as is forth e ap pe ll at e co urt's co ns id erat io n o f th e m eri ts of th e cas e. Whe re the act s re li edup on to supp ort t he jud gm en t ar e in th e rec or d a ndare u nd is pu te d re m an d i s u nn eces sa ry . Id. (ci ti ng Gul

f To wi ng Co . v. St ea m Tan ker

, AMOCO New Y

ork, 64 8 F .2d24 2, 24 5 (5 thCir . Uni t B Jun e 1 98 1) ). 16Whe n v ie wedas awho le , th e co urt’s fi nd in gs pro vi de “ a su ffi ci en t b as is for

[o ur ] co ns id erat io n o f th e m eri ts of t he cas e.” Id. The d is tri ctco urt cl earl y fou nd th atHam il to n’s ab se nc e was ne ces si ta te d b y hi s m il it ary se rv ic e. 38 U.S.C. § 43 12 (a). Th e co urt fo un d t ha t Ham il to n d ecl in edth e tr an sf er af te r he kn ew—a nd ha d n ot ifi edhi s s up erv is or —t ha t h e was so on to be de pl oyed. Itals o fo un d tha t whe n h e le ft f

orde pl oym en t, ADMH o ffi ci al s t ol d h im th atth ey wou ldco nt in ue to lo okforot he r op po rtu ni ti es forhi m . Mor eo ve r, th e co urt fo un d t ha t Ham il to n de cl in edth e tr an sf

er s pe ci fic al ly becau se hi s m il it ary “ act iv at io n was sch edul edto oc cu r ab ou t t he ti m e th e tr an sf er wo ul d h av e b eco m e eff ect iv e.” Thu s, the di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t m il it ary se rv ic e cau se d Ham il to n t o b e ab se ntfro m ADMH is

“ su ffi ci en tl y

de ta il ed ” to gi ve us a cl ear u nd ers ta nd in g o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s an al y si s. Se lf

, 83 2 F .2dat 1 54 9. Th eref or e, a rem an d i s u nn eces sa ry . ADMH al so co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin rul in g t ha t ADMH vi ol at edUSERRA whe n i t d idno t p ro m pt ly rehi re Ham il to n i n 2 00 5. ADMH 5 arg ue s t ha t Ham il to n’s ab se nc e fro m hi s ADMH jo b was “ ne ces si ta te d b y ” h is refu sa l t o t ran sf

er t o adi ffer en t fa ci li ty andno t b y hi s m il it ary se rv ic e. Ther efo re, ADMH a

rgues alter

natively that if Hamilton resigned on De cembe r 31, 2003, then his 5 employ ment was for

a “brief, nonre curr ent period” and that ther e wa s “no re asonable expectation that such employ

ment [would] continue indef initely or for a significant pe riod.” 38 U.S. C. § 4312(d)( 1)(C). How ever , this argument is unpersuasive. T he re cord c lear ly establishes that ADMH e mploy ed Ha

milton for over sixt een year s. Even if ther e wa s no “re asonable expectation that such employ

ment [would] continue indef initely ,” his employ

ment was not for

a “brief, nonrec urre nt period.” 17ADMH co nt en ds th athe di d n otha ve a ri gh t t o re em pl oym en t u nd er USERRA. The Uni te d S ta te s ar gu es th atHam il to n d idno t re si gn , andalt ern at iv el y , th atev en if Ha m il to n h adres ig ne d, h e st il l d idno t wai ve hi s re em pl oym en t ri gh ts un de r USERRA. Und er USERRA, an emplo y ee h as reem pl oym en t ri gh ts if h is “ ab se nc e fro m a p os it io n o f em

pl oym en t i s n eces si ta te d b y reas on of s erv ic e in th e uni fo rm ed se rv ic es .” 38 U.S.C. 43 12 (a). Mo reo ve r, a “ co m bi na ti on of m ot iv es do es no t pr ecl ud e a fi nd in g t ha t [t he ve te ran ] le ft h is po si ti on in ord er t o p erfo rm m il it ary du ty. In t he real worl d, m ot iv es are o fte n m ix ed .” La pi ne v. W el lesl ey , 30 4 F .3d 90 , 10 2 (1 stCir . 20 02 ). 6 Pri orto de cl in in g the tra ns fer, Ham il to n n ot ifi edhi s s up eri or s t ha t h e wou ld be de pl oyin g s ho rtl y . Ham il to n n ev er ex pr es se d an i nt en t t o re si gn fro m hi s jo b. Ham il to n d ecl in edth e tr an sf er b ecau se he di d n otwantto m ov e an d d idno t wan t th e p ro m ot io n. WhenHam il to n l eftforde pl oym en t o n Dec em be r 29 , 20 03 , ADMH of

fic ia ls to ldhi m

th atth ey wou ldco nt in ue to lo okforanacce pt ab le pl acement f

orhi m . Reg ard le ss of Ha m il to n’s re as on forde cl in in g the tra ns fer t o

ADMH a

rgues that Lapine is not controlling bec ause it involved USERRA’s 6 prede cessor

statute. That argument is not persuasive. I n passingUSERRA, Congre ss made it clea r that the “ extensive body of ca se law” under the prede cessor statutes “would re main in full forc e and e ffe ct” to the e x tent it is consist ent with USERRA. S . Rep. No. 203, 102d Cong ., 1st Sess. 31 (1991). 18Tus cal oo sa , hi s d ecl in at io n “ do es no t p recl ud e a fi nd in g” th athi s ab se nc e fro m

ADMH was n eces si ta te d b y hi s m il it ary se rv ic e. Id. The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t ha t Ham il to n’s d ecl in at io n of th e tr an sf

er was no t a r es ig na ti on . Alth ou gh he m ay ha ve de cl in edth e tr an sf

er in pa rt b ecau se of h is de si re n otto m ov e, th is do es no t p rev en t a f in di ng th athi s ab se nc e fro m

hi s jo b a t ADMH was “ ne ces si ta te d b y hi s m il it ary se rv ic e.” The refo re, the co urt d idno t err in de te rm in in g t ha t Ham il to n’s ab se nc e fro m ADMH was n eces si ta te d b y hi s m il it ary se rv ic e. C. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN AWARDING DAMAGES The di stric t co urt o rd eredADMH to pa y m or e th an$2 5,0 00 forth e wag es an d b en efi ts th atHam il to n l os t b ecau se of ADM H’ s fa il ur e to reh ire hi m pro m pt ly as USERRA requi res . W it ho utcit in g a ny autho rit y , ADMH ass ert s t ha t t he Uni te d St at es m us t s ho w th atHam il to n wo ul d h av e ta ke n apo si ti on if o ne ha d b een of fere d. Howev er, ADMH m is ta ke nl y ass ig ns th is bu rd enof p ro of to th e em pl oyee. Und er the pl ai n l an gu ag e o f USERRA, “ th e em pl oyer ha s a dut y

to off er the em pl oyee” a p os it io n. Th ere i s n o re qu ire m en t t ha t t he em pl oyee pr ov e th athe wou ldha ve acce pt edth e p os it io n h aditbe enoff ered . 38 U.S.C. 43 13 (a)( 2) (A); 20 C.F.R. § 10 02 .19 1. Itwou ldbe in co ns is te ntwith t he lan gu ag e an d t he pu rp os e 19of

th e st atut e to requi re the em pl oyee to pro ve th athe wou ldha ve tak enth e po si ti onif i t h adbe enoff ered . Here, i t i s u nd is pu te d t ha t ADMH d idno t o fferHam il to n apo si ti on . ADMH can no t n ow av oi d p ay in g d am ag es forvi ol at in g USER RA by clai m in g th at“ itwou ldha ve be enanex erci se in fut il it y ” to off er Ham il to n apo si ti on to whi chhe was e nt it le d u nd er the law. Th eref or e, Ham il to n i s en ti tl edto da m ag es fo r wag es an d b en efi ts lo st . CONCLUSI ON The di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g ADMH’s m ot io n t o d is m is s b as edon Elev en th Am en dm en t s ov erei gn imm un ity is AFFIRMED . The d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs th atADMH vi ol at edUSERRA an d t ha t Ham il to n i s en ti tl edto da m ag es are AFFIRMED .

20