[PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 25 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cv -0 21 42 -J HH

SHERRY ROSS , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us JEFF ERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF H EALTH, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen dant -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 1 of 11The m ai n i ss ue pre se nt edinth is ap pe al is whet he r th e Je ffer so n C ou nt y

Dep artm en t o f Heal th is a st at e ag en cy en ti tl edto so ve rei gnimm un ity , un de r th e Elev en thAm en dm en t, fro m a co m pl ai ntof d is cri m in at io n b y a fo rm er em

pl oyee. Sh erry Ros s ap pe al s the su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of he r fo rm er em

pl oyer, th e Dep artm en t, an d a ga in sthe r co m pl ai ntof d is cri min at io n i n v io la ti on of t he Am eri can s wi thDis ab il it ie s Act , 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 01 , andTit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. §§ 20 00 e, 19 83 . The d is tri ctco urt ru le d t ha t the Dep artm en t i s en ti tl edto imm un ity , un de r th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t, fro m Ro ss ’s co m pl ai ntof d is ab il ity

di sc riminat io n a nd , alt ern at iv el y , th atRo ss fai le d t o re qu es t a rea so nabl e acc omm od at io n fo r he r di sabi li ty. The d is tri ctco urt al so rul edth at Ro ss waiv edhe r co m

pl ai ntof r aci al di sc riminat io n a nd , alt ern at iv el y , th atRo ss fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f raci al di sc riminat io n. We con cl ud e th at th e Dep art m en t i s i m

m un e fro m Ro ss ’s com

pl ai ntof d is ab il ity

di sc riminat io n a nd th atRo ss waiv edhe r co m pl ai ntof r aci al di sc riminat io n. We affi rm . I. BACK GROUND Ro ss , a fo rm er d en ta l as si st an t wi thth e Dep art m en t, fi le d aco m pl ai ntof di sc riminat io n b as edonhe r al le ge d d is ab il ity of f ib ro m y al gi a, 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 01 , an d b as edon he r rac e, id . §§ 20 00 e, 19 83 . Ros s al le ge d tha t the Depa rtment ap pr ov edhe r reque stto tak e m ed ic al lea ve un de r th e Fam il y an d M ed ic al Leav e 2 Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 2 of 11Act, 2 9 U.S.C. § 26 12 , bu t tha t the Depa rtment l at er re fu se d h er a re as on ab le

acco m m od at io n wh enitde ni edhe r li gh t dut y an d fi redhe r fo r us in g l eav e und er th e Act . Ros s al le ge d t ha t a s im il arl y -s itua te d d en ta l as si st an t wh o i s wh it e, Je nn ife r Glo ve r, was n otterm in at edaft er ex haus ti ng he r le av e und er the Act. The Depa rtment m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t. The Depa rtment a rg ue d th at , as ast at e en ti ty, iten joy edimm

un ity , un de r th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t, fro m Ro ss ’s com

pl ai ntof d is ab il ity

di sc riminat io n. Inth e al te rn at iv e, th e Dep art m en t arg ue d t ha t Ro ss fai le d t o re qu es t an acco m m od at io n fo r he r fi br omy al gi a. The Dep artm en t al so arg ue d t ha t Ro ss ha d wi th dr awnhe r co m pl ai ntof r aci al di sc riminat io n b y

admitti ng du rin g h er d ep os it io n t ha t ra ce was no t re la te d t o h er te rm in at io n a nd , alt ern at iv el y , th atth e Dep artm en t h adpro ffer edleg it im at e n on di sc riminat ory

reas on s fo r Ro ss ’s term in at io n. Ro ss res po nd edth atth e Dep art m en t was no t en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t. Ro ss arg ue d t ha t the Department wa s n oten ti tl edto imm un ity an d t ha t s he ha d es tabl is he d apri m a fac ie cas e o f di sabi li ty andraci al di sc riminat io n. Ro ss subm it te d s ev eral ex hi bi ts insupp ort o f he r res po ns e, in cl ud in g h er t erm in at io n le tt er fro m

th e Dep artm en t an d h er af fid av it . The t erm in at io n l et te r st at edth at Ro ss was fi red“ fo r fai lu re t o re tu rnfro m ap pr ov edm ed ic al lea ve ” an d tha t “ th e Dep artm en t [wa s] no lo ng er ab le to ap pr ov e ad di ti on al lea ve ” b ecau se of the 3 Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 3 of 11“ cri ti cal na tu re o f th e p os it io n” th atsh e o ccupi ed . The l et te r ex pl ai ne d t ha t Ro ss ’s

“ ap pr ov edlea ve of abs en ce en de d o n F eb ru ary 16 , 20 09 ”; he r do ct or ’s no te

“ st at ed[sh e] [was] abl e to return t o wo rkon Feb ru ary 19 , 20 09 ”; an d “ [o ]n Feb ru ary 11 , 20 09 , [sh e] [had ] ex haus te d [h er] rig ht s g ran te d u nd er the . . . Act.” Ro ss ’s affi da vi t re co un te d t he ev en ts th atledto he r te rm in at io n. Inpa rag rap h 3 2 of he r affi da vi t, Ro ss sai d s he “ [h ad ] pe rs on al kn owl ed ge ” th at , in20 06 , Glo ve r ha d e xh au st edhe r le av e und er the Act wi th ou t b ei ng di sc ip li ne d. The Depa rtment m ov edto strik e Ro ss ’s st at em en ts inhe r affi davi t ab ou t Glo ve r. The Dep artm en t ar gu edth atRo ss ’s st at em en t ab ou t h av in g p ers on al kn owl ed ge of Gl ov er’s l eav e und er the Act co ntrad ic te d R os s’s d ep os it io n te st im on y . The Dep art m en t al so arg ue d t ha t Ro ss ha d fa il edto ex pl ai n t he so ur ce of he r in fo rm at io n a ndth atkn owl ed ge ab ou t Gl ov er’s l eav e co ul d h av e b een acqui redon ly thro ug h i na dm is si bl e h ears ay . The di stric t co urt g ran te d the m ot io ns of t he Depa rtment t o s tri ke pa rag rap h 32 of R os s’s af

fid av itan d fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co urt ru le d t ha t the Dep artm en t was imm

un e fro m Ro ss ’s com

pl ai ntof d is ab il ity

di sc riminat io n. In th e al te rn at iv e, th e d is tri ctco urt ru le d t ha t the Depa rtment wa s en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t b ecau se Ro ss fai le d t o re qu es t an acco m m od at io n fo r he r di sabi li ty. The d is tri ctco urt al so rul edth atRo ss waiv edhe r co m pl ai ntof r aci al 4 Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 4 of 11di sc riminat io n a nd , alt ern at iv el y , th atRo ss fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f

raci al di sc riminat io n. II . STANDARD OF REVIEW W e rev ie w a su m

m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o andvi ew th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty . Uni v. o f Ala . Bd. o f Trs. v . New Life Art , In c., 68 3 F .3d12 66 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ). Summ ary jud gm en t s ho ul d b e en te red whe n the re i s n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factan d t he m ov in g p arty is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law. Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (a). II I. DI SCUSSI ON W e d iv id e o urdi sc us si on of t hi s ap pe al intwo parts . Firs t, we ad dr es s whe th er the Depa rtment i s en ti tl edto imm un ity , un de r th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t, fro m Ro ss ’s com

pl ai ntof d is cri m in at io n b as edon he r di sabi li ty. Seco nd , we ad dr es s wh ethe r Ro ss waiv edhe r co m pl ai ntof r aci al di sc riminat io n. A. The Dep ar tmen t Is a Sta te Agen cy Immu ne Fro m Ros s’ s C omp la in t o

f Dis ab il it y Dis cr imi na ti on . The Elev en th Am en dm en t g ua ran te es th atno nc on se nt in g s ta te s ca nn otbe su edby priv at e in di vi du al s i n fe de ral co urt. Bd . of Trs . of Un iv . of Al a. v. Garret t, 53 1 U.S. 3 56 , 36 3, 1 21 S. Ct. 9 55 , 96 1– 62 (20 01 ). Altho ug h C on gr es s m ay so m et im es ab ro ga te th e imm un ity of t he st at es , un de r th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t,

5 Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 5 of 11Co ng res s d idno t v al id ly abro ga te th atim m un ity un de r Tit le I of

th e Act . Id. at 36 0, 3 74 & n .9, 1 21 S. Ct. at96 0, 9 67 –6 8 & n.9 . Becau se imm un ity fro m su it un de r th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t “ is inth e n atur e o f a juri sd ic ti on al ba r,” i t “ sh ou ld be de ci de d a t an earl y

st ag e” t o p ro te ctth e so ve rei gn ty of st at es an d s tate ag en ts by spa rin g t he m

“ th e in di gn ity

of b ei ng ha le d i nt o fe de ral co urt b y pri va te li ti ga nt s.” B ou ch ardTran sp . Co. v . Fla . Dep’t o f Env tl . Pro t., 9 1 F .3d14 45 , 14 48 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6) . The Elev en th Am en dm en t p ro te ct s the imm un ity of n oton ly the st at es , bu t of st at e ag en ci es an d e nt it ie s tha t fu nc ti on as a n “ arm of t he st at e.” Ma nd ers v. Lee, 3 38 F.3d13 04 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (enba nc ). W he th er an en ti ty fun ct io ns as an“ arm

of t he st at e” i s a f

ed eral qu es ti on th atwe res ol ve by revi ewin g h ow the st at e co urts tre atth e en ti ty. Vers ig li o v . Bd. o f Den ta l Ex am ’rs of Ala., 6 86 F.3d 12 90 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (o n p et it io n fo r reh ’g) (ci ti ng Reg en ts of t he Uni v. o f Cal if. v . Doe, 5 19 U.S. 42 5, 4 29 n.5 , 11 7 S . Ct. 9 00 , 90 4 n .5 (1 99 7) ). “ In co nduc ti ng ou r an al y si s, thi s co urt ‘has st at edth e m os t i m po rta ntfact or

is ho w th e en ti ty has be entre at edby the st at e co urts .’ ” Id . at 1 29 2 (quo ti ng Tuv es on v. Fl a. Gov ern or ’s Cou nc il on Ind ian Aff ai rs , Inc ., 73 4 F .2d73 0, 7 32 (11 thCir . 19 84 )). Alab am a co urts ha ve un ifo rm ly treat edco un ty board s o f he al th as s ta te ag en ci es . See Will ia m s v . Mad is on Cn ty. Bd . of Hea lth, 5 23 So . 2d45 3, 4 55 (Ala . 6 Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 6 of 11Ci v. Ap p. 1 98 8) (ho ld in g tha t the Mad is on Co un ty Boardof He al th is a st at e

ag en cy en ti tl edto so ve rei gn imm un ity ); P ackv. Bl an ke ns hi p, 6 12 So . 2d39 9, 4 00 n.1 (Ala . 19 92 ) (ad op ti ng W il li am s an d h ol di ng th atanem pl oyee of th e Mo rg an Co un ty H eal th Depa rtment i s a s ta te em pl oyee); Bathg at e v . Mo bi le Cn ty. Bd . of Sch . Comm ’rs, 68 9 S o. 2 d 1 09 , 11 2– 13 (Ala . Civ . App . 19 96 ) (aff irming su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

em pl oyees o f th e Mo bi le Co un ty H eal th Department und er th e rea so ni ng em

pl oyed i n P ack ). The C ou rt o f Ci vi l Ap pe al s h as he ld , inth e co nt ex t o f de te rm in in g t he imm un ity of a n e m pl oyee, th atth e Je ffer so n C ou nt y Bo ardof He al this a st at e ag en cy . Sm ith v . Sm ith, 7 78 So . 2d18 9, 1 91 (Ala . Civ . App . 19 99 ). W e m

us t d eferto th atde te rm in at io n “ ab se ntso m e p ers ua si ve in di cat io n tha t the st at e’s hi gh es t co urt wo ul d d eci de th e is su e o th erwi se .” Si lv erb erg v. Pa in e, W eb be r, Ja ck so n & Curti s, In c., 71 0 F .2d67 8, 6 90 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). Ro ss arg ue s tha t the Depa rtment i s n otimm un e fro m a co m pl ai ntfor m on et ary da m ag es un de r th e Actbe cau se th e Dep art m en t s erv es as a n a ge ntof t he co un ty, in st eadof t he st at e, in pe rfo rm in g p ers on ne l func ti on s, b utth is arg um en t fai ls . “ InElev en th Am en dm en t ca se s, thi s C ou rt u se s fo urfact or s t o d et erm in e whe th er an en ti ty is [ast at e ag en t] incarryin g o uta pa rti cu la r fu nc ti on : (1 ) ho w st at e la w def

in es th e en ti ty; (2) whatde gr ee o f co ntro l the Sta te m ai nt ai ns ov er the 7 Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 7 of 11en ti ty; (3) wher e th e en ti ty deri ve s i ts fun ds ; an d (4 ) who is res po ns ib le for

jud gm en ts ag ai ns t the en ti ty.” Mand ers , 33 8 F .3dat 1 30 9. Th e fi rs t an d s eco nd fact or s wei gh infav orof i m m un ity be cau se th e au th or ity

an d dut ie s o f th e Dep artm en t “ are d eri ve d d ire ct ly from th e St at e.” Id . at 1 31 0– 11 . The Dep artm en t i s ch arg edby the st at e to “ supe rv is e th e en fo rcem en t o f th e h eal th la ws o f th e st at e”; to in ve st ig at e an d p rev en t d is eas es an d “ nu is an ces to publ ic he al th ”; an d t o e ns ur e th atall in st itut io ns acce ss edby the publ ic or u se d t o s up pl y th e p ub li c wit h g oo ds are s an it ary. Ala. Co de § 2 2- 3- 2( 1) –( 4) . Alth ou ghst at e la w ve st s the co un ty w ith aut ho rit y to hi re an d re m ov e em

pl oyees s ub

ject t o i ts m eri t syste m in st eadof t he st at e m eri t s y st em , see id . §§ 22 -3 -4 , 36 -2 6- 83 , th e Dep artm en t o pe rat es un de r th e supe rv is io n o f th e st at e. The s ta te bo ardof h eal th supe rv is es an d c on tro ls th e co un ty boa rd s o f he al th , cou nt y he al th off

ic ers , andall publ ic he al th work , id . §§ 22 -1 -3 , 22 -2 -2 (7 ), 22 -3 -1 ; the st at e h eal th off ic er ap pr ov es an d m ay

rem ov e fro m

off ic e th e co un ty heal th off

ic er, i d. § 22 -3 -2 (5 ); an d t he st at e h eal th off

ic er m us t ap pr ov e an y

lea ve tak enby the co un ty heal th of fic er ex ceed in g 3 0 d ay s, i d. § 22 -3 -5 (7 ). As t o t he th irdfact or , “ st at e in vo lv em en t i s s uf

fic ie nt ” to fin d t ha t i ts fun ds are i nv ol ve d i n t he pe rs on ne l de ci si on s o f th e Dep art m en t. Ma nd ers , 33 8 F .3dat 1 32 4. St at e st atut es m an da te th atth e co un ty pro vi de anoff ic e an d p ay

th e sa la ry

forth e co un ty heal th off ic er, 8 Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 8 of 11furn is h a ndst aff the co un ty heal th off ic e, an d g iv e th e co un ty dis cret io n t o l ev y a ta x t ha t i s u se d e xc lu si ve ly to fundth e o ffi ce. Ala . Cod e § § 2 2- 3- 5( 11 ), 22 -3 -6 , 22 -3 -1 0; see als o Op . Ala. Att ’y Gen. 2 00 7- 08 7 (2 00 7) (op in in g t ha t the

“ Je ffer so n C ou nt y

Bo ardof He al th is a st at e ag en cy rece iv in g s ta te fun ds th atis subjec t t o the Rel at io ns hi p Di sc lo su re Law”). As to th e fo urth fact or , th e Dep artm en t i s re sp on si bl e fo r pay in g any m on et ary jud gm en t “ ou t o f [i ts ] bu dg et ,” an d s tate law ex em

pt s the co un ty from

an y cla im ag ai ns t the Depa rtment. Al a. Co de § 2 2- 3- 12 . “ [T]he li ab il ity -fo r-ad ve rs e-ju dg m en t fa ct ordo es no t d efea t . . . imm un ity ” fo r th e Dep art m en t. Ma nd ers , 33 8 F .3dat 1 32 8. Ro ss als o a rg ue s tha t the Elev en th Am en dm en t d oe s n otba r he r cl ai m for in jun ct iv e rel ie f, bu t Ro ss fai le d t o fi le a co m pl ai ntag ai ns t a s tate off

ic er. Ro ss na m edon ly the Depa rtment a s a d efen da nt , bu t an in jun ct io n c anis su e o nl y ag ai ns t an in di vi du al off

ic er. See Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl a. v. Fl or id a, 51 7 U.S. 4 4, 74 , 11 6 S . Ct. 1 11 4, 1 13 2 (1 99 6) (“ The Elev en th Am en dm en t b ar [m ay ] be li fte d, as itwas i n Ex pa rte You ng , [20 9 U.S. 1 23 , 28 S. Ct. 4 41 (19 08 )], to all ow a s ui t ag ai ns t a s tate off

ic er.”) . Ros s ar gu es th atsh e co ul d n otli stanoff ic ia l o f th e Dep artm en t as a pa rty becaus e th e Dep art m en t was he r em pl oyer, bu t Ro ss co ul d ha ve so ug htin

jun ct iv e rel ie f ag ai ns t the co un ty heal th off ic er wh o i s v es te d wi th th e au th or ity

to hi re an d t erm in at e em pl oyees. Se e Ala . Cod e § 22 -3 -4 . 9 Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 9 of 11The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y gra nt edsu m

m ary jud gm en t i n favo r of th e Dep artm en t an d a ga in stRo ss ’s com pl ai ntof d is cri m in at io n b as edon he r di sabi li ty. The Dep art m en t i s a s ta te ag en cy en ti tl edto imm

un ity un de r th e Elev en thAm en dm en t, an d t he Depa rtment i s i m m un e fro m a co m pl ai ntof em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n u nd er Tit le I of th e Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act . B. The Distri ct

Co ur t Co rr ect lyGra nt ed Su mmar y Ju dgmen t Agai ns t Ro ss ’s Co mpl ai nt

of Raci al Dis cr imi na ti on . Ro ss waiv edhe r co m

pl ai ntof r aci al di sc riminat io n. Un de r Tit le VII, itis un la wfu l fo r anem

pl oyer “ to fai l o r refu se to hi re o r to di sc ha rg e an y in di vi du al , orot he rwis e to di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an y in di vi du al with re sp ectto hi s co m pe ns at io n, t erm s, co nd it io ns , or p riv il eg es of e m pl oym en t, b ecau se of s uc h in di vi du al ’s race, co lo r, rel ig io n, s ex , or n at io na l o rig in .” 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a)( 1) . “ The ul ti m at e b ur de n o f pe rs ua di ng th e tr ie r of factth atth e de fen da ntin te nt io na ll y

di sc riminat edag ai ns t the pl ai nt iff rem ai ns at a ll ti m es with th e p la in ti ff.” Sp rin ge r v. C on ve rg y s C us to m er Mg m t. Grp ., Inc ., 50 9 F .3d13 44 , 13 47 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Whe n a sk eddu rin g h er d ep os it io n wh ethe r sh e “ [fel t] li ke [h er] term in at io n h adan yth in g t o d o [wi th ] . . . [her] race,” Ro ss res po nd ed , “ no .” Bas edon Ro ss ’s un equi vo cal co nc es si on , th e d is tri ctco urt was en ti tl edto gra nt su m m ary jud gm en t i n favo r of th e Dep art m en t.

10 Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 10 of 11IV. CONCLUSI ON

W e AFFIRMth e su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Dep art m en t.

11 Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 11 of 11