United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-20423 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

Letitia Denise Rudison, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

MD Anderson Cancer Center, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:23-CV-543 

______________________________ 

Before Davis, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: 

Defendant-Appellant, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (“M.D. 

Anderson”), appeals the district court’s order denying its Rule 12(b)(1) and 

12(b)(6) motions seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s suit filed under the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Because M.D. Anderson is 

entitled to sovereign immunity, we REVERSE and REMAND with 

instructions to dismiss Plaintiff’s suit. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, Letitia Denise Rudison, filed a complaint against 

her former employer, M.D. Anderson, alleging employment discrimination 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

January 29, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-20423 Document: 00517047341 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2024
No. 23-20423 

2 

on the basis of her age under the ADEA. M.D. Anderson is a component 

institution of The University of Texas at Houston, which is under the 

management and control of the board of regents of The University of Texas 

System.1

 This Court has held that “public universities are entitled to 

sovereign immunity as arms of the state,”2

 and we have “consistently treated 

health institutions of the UT System . . . as instrumentalities of the State of 

Texas.”3

 

 Plaintiff does not dispute that M.D. Anderson is entitled to sovereign 

immunity as an arm of the state of Texas under the Eleventh Amendment, 

but she argues that M.D. Anderson has waived its immunity by accepting 

federal funds under Title IX. As M.D. Anderson points out, Plaintiff has not 

sued under Title IX, but under the ADEA. In Kimel v. Florida Board of 

Regents,

4

 the Supreme Court held that “Congress did not validly abrogate the 

States’ sovereign immunity to suits by private individuals” when it enacted 

the ADEA.5

 Moreover, we previously have determined in rejecting this 

identical argument in an ADEA case, that “Texas’s general acceptance of 

federal funding does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity from 

discrimination suits.”6

_____________________ 

1 See Tex. Educ. Code § 73.001(3) (listing The University of Texas M.D. 

Anderson Cancer Center as a component institution of The University of Texas at 

Houston). 

2 Daniel v. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr., 960 F.3d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation 

omitted). 

3 Id. (citations omitted). 

4

 528 U.S. 62 (2000). 

5 Id. at 91. 

6 Sullivan v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. at Hous. Dental Branch, 217 F. App’x. 

391, 395 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (unpublished). Unpublished opinions issued on or 

Case: 23-20423 Document: 00517047341 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2024
No. 23-20423 

3 

 Based on the foregoing, we REVERSE and REMAND with 

instructions to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction on the basis of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh 

Amendment. 

REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS TO 

DISMISS. 

_____________________ 

after January 1, 1996, may be considered as persuasive authority. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 

F.3d 391, 401 (5th Cir. 2006); 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 

Case: 23-20423 Document: 00517047341 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/29/2024