United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-20249

Norma Soto, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

MD Anderson Cancer Center, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CV-2014

Before Wiener, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Norma Soto sued her employer, MD Anderson Cancer Center, after 

she was allegedly fired in response to her request for an accommodation for 

her disability. She asserted claims for discrimination and retaliation under 

both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Texas Commission 

on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). MD Anderson moved to dismiss Soto’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 3, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-20249 Document: 00516116789 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2021
No. 21-20249

2

claims based on sovereign immunity. The district court denied the motion 

and stated MD Anderson waived its sovereign immunity by accepting federal 

funds. See Pederson v. La. State Univ., 213 F.3d 858, 876 (5th Cir. 2000) 

(concluding university waived sovereign immunity by accepting federal 

funds under Title IX). MD Anderson brought this interlocutory appeal.

MD Anderson is entitled to sovereign immunity and the district court 

erred in concluding otherwise. Because MD Anderson is an agency of the 

State of Texas, it is entitled to sovereign immunity unless Soto can invoke 

one of two exceptions to sovereign immunity: abrogation or waiver. See Coll. 

Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 670

(1999). Neither exception, however, applies here.

In Sullivan v. Texas A&M University System, this court held Texas’ 

sovereign immunity was neither abrogated nor waived for ADA claims. See 

986 F.3d 593, 596, 598 (5th Cir. 2021). Although the ADA purports to 

abrogate states’ sovereign immunity in 42 U.S.C. § 12202, the Supreme 

Court has held this provision exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority and 

does not validly abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity. See id. at 596 (citing 

Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374 (2001)); id. (“Sullivan 

cannot rely on abrogation to overcome Texas’[]sovereign immunity from his 

claim under Title I of the ADA.”). As for waiver, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(1) 

providesthatstates waive sovereign immunity by accepting federal funds and 

violating certain enumerated statutes including “any other Federal statute 

prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance.” But 

in Sullivan, this court determined the ADA does not fall within that clause

and therefore Texas did not waive its sovereign immunity under 

§ 2000d-7(a)(1). See Sullivan, 986 F.3d at 598–99. Soto’s ADA claims are

thus barred by sovereign immunity.

Case: 21-20249 Document: 00516116789 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2021
No. 21-20249

3

Likewise, Soto’s TCHRA claims are barred by sovereign immunity. 

See id. at 599 (“In the TCHRA, the State of Texas waives its immunity to 

suit in state courts, but it ‘does not expressly waive sovereign immunity in 

federal court.’” (quoting Perez v. Region 20 Educ. Serv. Ctr., 307 F.3d 318, 332 

(5th Cir. 2002))).

Accordingly, the district court incorrectly held MD Anderson waived 

its sovereign immunity to Soto’s claims. We REVERSE and REMAND to 

the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case: 21-20249 Document: 00516116789 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/03/2021