2005 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
10-12-2005 

# B e nn v . Firs t Judic i al D i s t 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 . 01-3769

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_2005

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 2005 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

" Be nn v . F ir s t Jud ic i al Di s t " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 300. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/300P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 01- 3769, 01- 4012

DONAL D B E NN, A ppel l ant

v. F IR S T JU D IC IA L D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA ;

C IT Y O F P H IL A D E L P H IA ; BO AR D OF P E NS I ONS AND R E T I RE M E NT M UNI CI P AL P E N S IO N F U N D O F T H E C IT Y O F P H IL A D E L P H IA

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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. N o. 98- cv- 05730) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do C
. R obr eno
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember16, 2005 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: O ct ober12, 2005)

R os s B egel m an B egel m an & O r l ow C herr yH i l l , N J 08034 A t t or neyforA ppel l antT he Penns y l vani a courts y s t em i s di vi ded i nt o 60 j udi ci al 1 di s t r i ct s . See 42 Pa. C ons . St at
. A nn. § 901( a) (W est2005)
. T he J udi ci al D i s t r i cti s composed of the thr ee c our t s thatm ak e u p t he Phi l adel phi a C ount ycour ts y s t em: the C our tof C om m on Pl eas ( w hi ch i ncl udes a tri al di vi s i on, an orphans ’ cour tdi vi s i on, and a f a m ilyc o u rt d iv isio n ); M u n icip a l C o u rt (w h ich in c lu d e s a c iv il di vi s i on and a cr i m i nal di vi s i on) ; and T r aff i c C our t
. See i d. § 951 (C o m m o n P lea s), § 1 1 2 1 (M u n icip a l C o u rt), § 1 3 2 1 (T ra f f ic C o u rt ). 2 D avi d M
. D onal ds on A d m in istra tiv e O f

f ice o f P e n n sy lv a n ia C o u rts Phi l adel phi a, PA l 9l 02 A t t or neyforA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge Pl ai nt i ff D onal d B enn, w ho had bee n a pr obat i on and p a ro le o f f ice r f o r th e F irst Ju d icia l D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( “J udi ci al D i s t r i ct ”) , br oughts ui tagai ns thi s form erempl oy er 1 al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of Ti t l e I of the A m er i cans w i t h D i s abi l i t i es A ct( “A D A ”) , 42 U
. S. C
. § 12101 ets eq. T he D i s t r i ctC our t , by o rd e r d a ted S e p tem b e r 6 , 2 0 0 1 , g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to t he J udi ci al D i s t r i ct
. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatthe J udi ci al D istric t is a sta te a g e n c ya n d th e re f o re is e n tit led to E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity, a h o ld in g B e n n v e h e m e n tly o p p o s e s . T he J udi ci al D i s t r i cts t at es that“[t ] he pr es entcas e i s an oppor tuni t yfort hi s C our tt o fi nal l yi s s ue a publ i s hed pr ece dent w hi ch hol ds t hats t at e court s have El eventh A m endment i m m uni t y , i n or dert o gui de di s t r i ctcour t s and t o quel l r epea t ed and unnec es s aryl i t i gat i on of thi s i s s ue. ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . at8. W e w i l l proceed t o co nsi der that i ssue. B efore w e do so w e m u st co n side r th e Ju d ici al D istri ct’s co n tention that B en n ’s a p p e a l w a s u n tim e ly.I n i t s ans w ert o t he compl ai nt , t he J udi ci al D i s t r i ctdeni ed 2 B enn’ s al l egat i on t hati tfai l ed t o offe rhi m accom m o d at i on, and deni ed B enn’ s al l egat i on that he w as w r ongful l yt erm i nat ed. For purpos es of thi s appea l , t he J udi ci al D i s t r i ctacc ept s B enn’ s al l eged f a c ts a s tru e . 3 I. FACTS B enn w as empl oy ed bythe J udi ci al D i s t r i ctas a pr obat i on and par ol e off

i cerfr om 1977 unt i l 1997. T hr oughoutm os tof th a t p e ri o d h e w a s e n g a g e d in c le ri c a l a n d a d m in is tr a tiv e ta s k s . I n 1996, he w as t r ans ferr ed t o w or k i n t he Enfor cementU ni tand w a s a p p o in ted a S p e c ial D e p u tyb yth e U n ited S tate s M a rsh a ls O ffi ce. I ti s appar entfr om the r ecor d t hatB enn w as notpl eas ed b yth e tra n sf

e r. A s h is b rie f

re c ites , in th e n e w p o sitio n h e h a d to w e a r a f ire a rm a n d a b u llet-p ro o f v e st, u se h a n d c u f

f s, a n d lo c a te and appr ehend da nger ous cr i m i nal s . I n hi s compl ai nt , B enn al l eges t hat“he w as notm ent al l ys ui t ed forthi s pos i t i on” and, sh o rtlya f

ter h is tra n sf

e r, b e g a n e x p e rie n c in g jo b -re late d a n x iety a n d stre ss . A p p . at 1 9 . H e a lleg e d lysu f f e re d p o st-tra u m a tic s hock af t ers eei ng a co- w or keras s aul t ed. I n O ct ober1996, he w as acc i dent al l ys t ruck bya ca raft ers eei ng a pr obat i on vi ol at or on t he s t r eet
. H e t ook l eave fr om w or k forthe nextei ght m o n th s, c iti n g p h y sic a l in ju rie s f ro m th e a c c id e n t, po st-tra u m a tic s hock di s or der , and chr oni c depr es s i on. B enn al l eges thatthe Ju d icia l D istric t re f

u se d to o f

f e r a n ya c c o m m o d a tio n f o r h is s t r es s di s or der , and thathe w as w r ongful l yt erm i nat ed. B enn fi l ed a f

or m al char ge w i t h t he EE O C and r ece i ved a r i ghtt o s ue l et t eron A ugus t20, 1998. H e fi l ed s ui ti n U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a on O ct ober29, 1998, cl ai m i ng notonl ydi s cr i m i nat i on and re talia tio n in v io latio n o f th e A D A b u t als o v io latio n s o f sta te l aw byt he J udi ci al D i s tr i ct , the C i t yof Phi l adel phi a, and the B oar d of Pens i ons and R et i r ementM uni ci pal Pens i on Fund of t h e Ci t yo f

P h i l a d e l p h i a ( “ Bo a r d o f P e n s i o n s ” )
. Af

t e rs o me 2 act i vi t yi n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , the J udi ci al D i s t r i ctfi l ed a mot i on4 fors um m aryj udgm enton Sept ember27, 1999 on t he gr ound of i t s ent i t l ementt o E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni t y . T hatm ot i on w as gr ant ed byor derof the D i s t r i ctC our tdat ed Sept ember6, 2 0 0 1 a n d e n te re d o n th e d o c k e t o n S e p te m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 1
. II. THE J URI S DI CT I ON I S S UE O n t he s ame daythatthe D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed the s um m aryj udgm entor der , Sept ember10, 2001, i tal s o ent er ed an or derdi s m i s s i ng w i t houtpr ej udi ce de fenda ntB oar d of Pens i ons a n d d e f e n d a n tCi t yo f

P h i l a d e l p h i a . I ti s th e c o i n c i d e n c e o f two or der s on t he s ame dayi n t he s ame cas e thatgi ves r i s e t o t he J udi ci al D i s t r i ct ’ s ar gum entthatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der t he ca s e bec aus e B enn di d notfi l e a pr oper , t i m el ynot i ce of a p p e a l. R u le 3 o f th e F ed era l R u les o f A p p ell ate P roc ed u re req u ir es th at a n o ti ce o f a p p ea l “de sign ate the jud g m en t, o rde r, o r p a rt th e re o f

b e in g a p p e a le d .” F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 (c )( 1 )( B ). R ul e 4 r equi r es t hatt he not i ce be fi l ed “w i t hi n 30 day s aft erthe j ud gmen toror de ra pp e a l e d f r om i s e nt e r e d. ” Fe d. R. A pp . P. 4 (a )( 1 )( A ). B enn fi l ed a not i ce of

appea l dat ed O ct ober4, 2001 t hat re a d s, in f

u ll: N ot i ce i s her ebygi ven thatPl ai nt i ff D onal d B enn byand thr ough hi s under s i gned couns el her eby appea l s t o t he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s for th e T h ird C irc u it fro m th e O rd e r o f th e H o n o ra b le E duar do C
. R obr eno, ent er ed i n t he above ca p ti o n ed p roc ee d ing o n the 6 th d ayo f S ep tem b er, 2 0 0 1
. P l.’ s N o tic e o f

A p p e a l ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). W hen B enn fi l ed the O ct ober4 N ot i ce, w hi ch w as admi t t edl yt i m el y , he mi s t akenl yat t ache d a copyof the or der5 d ism iss in g th e c laim s a g a in st th e B o a rd o f P e n sio n s a n d th e C ity of Phi l adel phi a, r atherthan a c opyof the or derent er i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the J udi ci al D i s tr i ct
. W hen B enn r ecogni zed hi s m i s t ake, he fi l ed anothernot i ce of appea l dat ed O ct ob er 22 w hich w as i ntended t o clar i fythat “[i ]tw as [hi s] i nt ent i on t o appea l t he O r derof Sept ember6, 2001, i s s ued r egar di ng t he [J udi ci al D i s t r i ct ]
. ” Pl
. ’ s A m ended N ot i ce of A ppeal ( emphasi s added)
. I f w e r egar d t he O ct ober22, 2001 N ot i ce of

A ppeal as t he oper at i ve not i ce, the J udi ci al D i s t r i ct w oul d be corr ectt hatt he appe al w as unt i m el ybeca us e fi l ed out s i de the 30- dayper i od pr es cr i bed byR ul e 4. C om pl i ance w i t h t he R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e for pr operfi l i ng of a not i ce of appea l i s “mandat oryand ju ri s d ic tio n a l.” L u s a rd i v . X e ro x C o rp ., 9 7 5 F .2 d 9 6 4 , 9 7 0 n .7 ( 3d C i r . 1992)
. A cour tm aynotw ai ve the j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ement s of R ul es 3 and 4, even f or“good ca us e s how n” underR ul e 2. T or r es v. O akl and Scave ngerC o. , 487 U
. S. 312, 3 1 7 (19 8 8 ). B en n arg u es th at, b ec au se th e R u les d o n o t r eq u ir e a n a t t a c h me n to f

t h e o r d e rth a ti s th e s u b j e c to f th e a p p e a l , we m ayand s houl d di s r egar d t he copyof the i ncorr ector derthathe at t ache d t o t he O ct ober4 N ot i ce. W e appr oach the i s s ue s o m e w h a td i f

f e r e n t l y. In S h e a v . S m ith , 9 6 6 F .2 d 1 2 7 , 1 2 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ), th is c o u rt sta ted th a t w e “ lib e ra llyc o n stru e th e re q u ire m e n ts o f R u le 3. ” M or eover , t he Supr eme C our thas s t at ed thateven i f a not i ce does notm eett he l et t erof R ul e 3, ther e i s appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on i f the appe l l anthas fi l ed a “ funct i onal equi val ent ” of a pr oper not i ce. T or r es , 487 U
. S. at316- 17; s ee a l s o Shea, 966 F. 2d at 1 3 0
. A l t hough w e have notpr evi ous l ybeen pr es ent ed w i t h a cas e pr eci s el yl i ke thi s one, w her e the ambi gui t yi n t he not i ce of appea l ar i s es fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i s s uance of tw o or der s on the s am e d ay , w e h av e su stai n ed o u r j u ri sd ict ion in ca ses w h ere the a p p ell an t’ s n o ti ce o f a p p ea l i m p li ca ted tw o d iffe ren t ord ers i n t he s ame act i on and fa i l ed t o s peci fythe corr ector der appea l ed. See, e. g. , Shea, 966 F. 2d 127 ( i nvol vi ng not i ce of appea l s peci fy i ng or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof6 t w o defe ndant s , w hen appe al w as actual l yal s o i nt ended f r om p ri o r ord er g ran ti n g su m m aryjud g m en t i n fa v o r of a third defe ndant ) ; C T C I m por t s & E xpor t s v. N i ger i an Petr ol eum C orp. , 951 F. 2d 573 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( i nvol vi ng not i ce of appea l s peci fy i ng or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof another par t yi n t he ca s e, w hen appe al w as actual l yi nt ended f r om pr i or o rde r i m p o sing san cti o n s o n ap p ell an t) ; G o o d ing v . W arn erL amber tC o. , 744 F. 2d 354 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( i nvol vi ng not i ce of appea l s peci fy i ng or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enton one cl ai m , w hen appe al w as actual l yal s o i nt ended f r om pr i oror der di s m i s s i ng anothercl ai m i n t he ca s e)
. Foral l i nt ent s and p u rp o se s, th e d e f

e c t in B e n n ’s O c to b e r 4 N o tice w a s a f a ilu re to s peci fyt he corr ector derthatw as bei ng appea l ed. W e have hel d t hata not i ce maybe cons t rued as br i ngi ng up an uns peci fi ed or derforr evi ew i f i tappea r s fr om the not i ce of appe al i t s el f and the s ubs equentpr ocee di ngs on appea l that t he appe al w as i nt ended t o have be en t aken f r om the uns peci fi ed j udgm ent , or der , orpar tther eof. See El fm an M ot or s , I nc. v. C hr y s l erC orp. , 567 F. 2d 1252, 1254 ( 3d C i r . 1977) ( ci t i ng Fom an v. D avi s , 371 U
. S. 178 ( 1962) )
. T o det erm i ne w hether a p p e llate ju risd ictio n v e sts o v e r a n o rd e r th a t is n o t sp e c if ied in t he n oti ce of

app eal , w e con si der i n p art i cularw hetherthere i s a con necti on betw een the speci fi ed an d u nspecifi ed o rder s, w h e th e r th e in ten tio n to a p p e a l th e u n sp e c if ied o rd e r is a p p a re n t, w h ethe r th e o p p o sing p artyw as p rejud iced b ythe a p p ell an t’ s fai l ur e t o s peci fyt he corr ector der , and w hetherthe oppos i ng par t yhas had a f

ul l oppor tuni t yt o br i ef the i s s ues . Shea, 966 F. 2d at129 ( ci t i ng W i l l i ams v. G uzza r di , 875 F. 2d 46, 49 ( 3d C ir
. 1 9 8 9 )). I n B enn’ s cas e, tr eat i ng the or derat t ache d t o t he c o m p lain t as th e sp e c if

ied o rd e r a n d th e o rd e r B e n n so u g h t to ap p ea l as th e u n sp ec ifi ed o rde r, itis ap p are n t th at bo th o rde rs w ere conn ect ed in that theyw ere di sposi t i ve o f t he sam e case and i s s ued on the s ame day , al bei tas t o di ffe r entpart i es . T he J udi ci al D i s t r i cthad not i ce of B enn’ s i nt ent i on t o appea l the g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in a tele p h o n e c o n f e re n c e h e ld w ith t he D i s t r i ctC our ton Sept ember6, 2001, the dayon w hi ch the r el evantor der s w er e i s s ued. I ndeed, the J udi ci al D i s t r i ctdoes7 notdi s put e thati thad not i ce of B enn’ s i nt ent i on t o appea l the gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent , nordoes i tar gue thati tw as i n any w a yp re ju d ice d b yth e d e f

e c tiv e O c to b e r 4 N o tice . N o r c o u ld it s o ar gue r eal i s t i cal l y , as B enn’ s m i s t ake w as caughtand c o rre c ted in tim e to a f

f o rd th e Ju d icia l D istric t a f u ll an d f a ir oppor tuni t yt o br i ef the i s s ues , i ncl udi ng the ade quacyof the n o tice , w h ich it h a s d o n e . T h e O c to b e r 4 N o tice o f A p p e a l, al bei ti m per fec t , cons t i tut es the “f unct i onal equi val ent ” of a p ro p e r n o tice , an d it i s th e re f o re su f f icie n t to v e st u s w ith juri sd ict ion to d ec ide th e q u esti o n o f th e Ju d ici al D istri ct’s i m m uni t y . W e r ej ectt he J udi ci al D i s t r i ct ’ s cont ent i on t o t he c o n t r a r y. III .

ELEVENTH AM ENDM ENT I M M UNI TY W e thus tur n t o cons i derthe ce ntr al ques t i on i n t hi s cas e - w hethert he J udi ci al D i s t r i cti s an i ns t rum ent al i t yof the C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a ent i t l ed t o i m m uni t yunderthe E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n tf r o m a s u i tf

o rd a m a g e s b r o u g h tb y a form erempl oy ee pur s uantt o t he A D A
. O urr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti s de novo, U ni on Paci fi c R
. R
. C o. v. G r eentr ee Tr ans p. T rucki ng C o. , 293 F. 3d 120, 125 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , part i cul ar l ybeca us e i n t hi s cas e the i s s ue i s a l egal one. It is to o late in th e ju risp ru d e n c e o f th e E lev e n th Ame n d me n tf

o rt h i s c o u r t( a n d p e r h a p s e v e n f o rth e S u p r e me C o u rt) to in ter p re t th a t A m e n d m e n t in lig h t o f its e x p licit l anguage as appl i cabl e onl yt o s ui t s agai ns ta s t at e br oughtby c iti z e n s o f

a n o th e r sta te. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s c o n sis ten tly hel d t hatt he El eventh A m endmenti m m uni zes an uncons ent i ng s t at e fr om s ui t s br oughti n fede r al cour tbyi t s ow n ci t i zens as w el l as byci t i zens of anothers t at e. See e. g. , H ans v. L oui s i ana, 13 4 U. S. 1 ( 18 90 ) ; Se mi no l e Tr i be of Fl a . v. Fl or i da , 51 7 U. S. 4 4 (1 9 9 6 ). C o n g re ss m a ya b ro g a te th e S tate s’ E lev e n th A m endmenti m m uni t ypur s uantt o i t s author i t yunder§ 5 of the Four t eenth A m endmentpr ovi ded i thas unequi vocal l yexpr es s ed i t s i nt e ntt o d o s o. Se e K i mel v. Fl a . Bd. of Rege nt s , 52 8 U. S.I n G arr et t , t he C our tcons i der ed onl yT i t l e I , the Ti t l e at 3 i s s ue her e. T he C our t expr es s l y r es erved the i s s ue of a br ogat i on of T i t l e I I of the A D A , deal i ng w i t h t he “se rvi ces , pr ogr ams, and act i vi t i es of a publ i c ent i t y . ” 42 U
. S. C
. § 12132. I n T ennes s ee v. L a n e , 5 4 1 U .S . 5 0 9 (2 0 0 4 ), th e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e p lain tiff c o u ld m ai nt ai n an ac t i on underT i t l e I I of the A D A agai ns tthe s t at e for i t s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de ac ces s t o j udi ci al pr oceed ings fordi s abl ed par t i es . Pr es ent l ypendi ng befor e t he C our ti s t he ques t i on of w h e th e r th e im m u n ityo f th e sta te h a s b e e n a b ro g a ted f o r a su it underT i t l e II b y a d is abl ed s t at e pr i s oner . G oodm an v. R ay , 120 Fed. A p p x . 785 ( 11t h C i r . 2004) , cert
. gr ant ed s ub nom
. U ni t ed St at es v. G eor gi a, 73 U
. S. L
. W
. 3671 ( U
. S. M ay16, 2005) ( N o. 04- 1203) , and G oodm an v. G eor gi a, 73 U
. S. L
. W
. 3671 ( U
. S. M ay16, 2 0 0 5 ) (N o . 0 4 -12 3 6 ).
In 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 0 2 , C o n g re ss p ro v id e s: “ A S tate sh a ll 4 not be i m m une under t he el eventh amendm ent t o the C ons t i tut i on of the U ni t ed St at es fr om an ac t i on i n [a] Feder al or St at e cour tof c o m p e te n t ju ri s d ic tio n f o r a v io la tio n o f

th is c h a p te r.” 8 6 2 , 7 3 -7 4 , 7 9 (2 0 0 0 ); C o lleg e S a v . B a n k v . F la. P re p a id P o s ts e c o n d a ry E d u c . E x p e n s e B d ., 5 2 7 U .S . 6 6 6 , 6 7 0 (1 9 9 9 ). B e c a u se B e n n ’s a c tio n in v o k e s T itl e I o f th e A D A , h is cl ai m i s governed byB oar d of Trus t ees of the U ni ver s i t yof A l abam a v. G arr et t , 53 1 U
. S
. 35 6 (200 1). E ven w hen C on gress ’ in ten t to a b ro g a te th e S tate s’ E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ityis bey ond di s put e, as t he Supr eme C our tconce ded i tw as i n T i t l e I o f th e A D A , th e S u p re m e C o u rt m a yh o ld , as it d id in G a rre tt,

3 i d. at363, t hatC ongr es s di d notactpur s uantt o a val i d gr antof cons t i tut i onal author i t y . I tfol l ow s thatPenns y l vani a, i f s ued 4 u n d e rT i t l e I , r e t a i n s i t s E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n ti m m u n i t y. M o re o v e r, a s u it m a yb e b a rre d b yth e E lev e n th A m endmenteven though a s t at e i s notnamed a par t yt o t he a c tio n , so lo n g a s th e sta te is d e e m e d to b e th e re a l p a rtyin i nt er es t
. R egent s of the U ni v. of C al
. v. D oe, 519 U
. S. 425, 429 ( 1997) ; E del m an v. J or dan, 415 U
. S. 651, 663 ( 1974) ; Fi t chi k v. N
. J. T ran sitR ail O p era ti o n s, Inc
. , 8 7 3 F
. 2 d 6 5 5 , 6 5 9 (3d C ir
.9 1989)
. T hi s cour t , i n a s er i es of ca s es , hel d t hatvar i ous P e n n sy lv a n ia a g e n c ies a n d e n tit ies a re e n tit led to E lev e n th A m endmenti m m uni t yeven though the s t at e i t s el f has notbeen named as a def

endant
. See, e. g. , Sacr ed H eartH os p. v. D ep’ tof P u b . W e lf

a re , 1 3 3 F .3 d 2 3 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (P e n n sy lv a n ia D epart m entof Publ i c W el far e) ; B l anci ak v. A l l eghenyL udl um C orp. , 77 F. 3d 690 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( Penns y l vani a D epart m entof L aborand I ndus t r y ) ; Skehan v. St at e Sy s . of H i gherE duc. , 815 F. 2d 244 ( 3d C i r . 1987) ( s t at e uni ver s i t ys y s t em); A l l egheny C ount ySani t aryA ut h. v. E PA , 732 F. 2d 1167 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( P e n n s yl v a n i a D e p a r t m e n to f E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s o u r c e s ) ; D a ye v . P e n n sy lv a n ia, 4 8 3 F .2 d 2 9 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 3 ) (P e n n sy lv a n ia D ep artm en t of

T ran sp o rt ati o n ). W e br oache d butdi d notdeci de the i s s ue of the J udi ci al D i s t r i ct ’ s E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni t yi n C al l ahan v. C i t yof Phi l adel phi a, 207 F. 3d 668 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , w her e w e di s m i s s ed a s ui tunder28 U
. S. C
. § 1983 agai ns t , among ot herdefe ndant s , the J udi ci al D i s t r i cton t he gr ound t hati ti s nota “pe r s on” w i t hi n t he m eani ng of thats t atut e. I d. at673. I n t hatcas e w e as s es s ed the Ju d ici al D istri ct’s rel ati o n sh ip to the stat e b yap p ly ing the f ac tors w e had e num er at ed i n ourear l i erdeci s i on i n Fi t chi k, 873 F. 2d at 6 5 5
. In F itch ik , w e h e ld th a t to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a su it againstan en t i t yi s actuall ya sui tagainstthe st at e i t sel f, w e m ust cons i der : ( 1) t he s our ce of the moneythatw oul d paythe j udgm ent( i
. e. , w hetherthats our ce w oul d be the s t at e) ; ( 2) the s t atus of the ent i t yunders t at e l aw ; and ( 3) the degr ee of aut onom yt he ent i t yhas
. I d. at659 ( di s t i l l i ng t o t hr ee l ar ger ques t i ons t he numer ous fac t or s s etfor t h i n U rbano v. B oar d of M anage r s , 415 F. 2d 247 ( 3d C i r . 1969) )
. A l t hough none of the t hr ee f act or s al one i s di s pos i t i ve, i n Fi t chi k w e s t at ed thatthe f ir s t is th e m o s t im p o rt a n t. F itc h ik , 8 7 3 F .2 d a t 6 5 9
. T he J udi ci al D i s t r i ctar gues thatfol l ow i ng the dec i s i on by t he Supr eme C our ti n D oe, 519 U
. S. at425, w e ca n no l onger asc ri b e p ri m ac yto the firstfa ctor. W e a g ree . In D o e, th e C o u rt m ade c l eart hatt he r el evanti nqui r yi s notm er el ya “f or m al i s t i c10 ques t i on of ul t i m at e fi nanci al l i abi l i t y . ” I d. at431. I ns t ead, the r el evanti nqui r yi s “the ent i t y ’ s pot ent i al l egal l i abi l i t y , r ather th a n its a b ili tyo r in a b ili tyto re q u ire a th ird p a rtyto re im b u rse it, ort o di s char ge the l i abi l i t yi n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . ” I d. I n a deci s i on t hatfol l ow ed D oe, the Supr eme C our texpl ai ned that “[w ] hi l e s t at e s over ei gn i m m uni t ys erves the i m por t antfunct i on o f sh ield in g sta te tre a su rie s . . . th e d o c trin e ’s c e n tra l p u rp o se is to a c c o rd th e S ta te s th e re s p e c t o w e d th e m a s jo in t s o v e re ig n s .” Fed. M ar . C om m ’ n v. S. C
. St at e Por t s A uth. , 535 U
. S. 743, 765 ( 2002) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on and quot at i on om i t t ed)
. W e have r ece nt l yi nt erpr et ed thi s purpos e t o ent ai l nothi ng l es s than
“ p ro tec t[ in g ] a g a in st th e in d ig n ityo f a n yk in d o f

su it w h a ts o e v e r.” H a m p e v . B u tle r, 3 6 4 F .3 d 9 0 , 9 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T he r el egat i on of fi nanci al l i abi l i t yt o t he s t atus of one fac t orco- equal w i t h ot her s i n t he i m m uni t yanal y s i s does not m ean thati ti s t o be i gnor ed. L i ke the othertw o fac t or s r efe r r ed t o i n Fi t chi k, i ti s s i m pl yt o be cons i der ed as an i ndi cat orof the r el at i ons hi p betw een the St at e and the ent i t yati s s ue. See D oe, 519 U
. S. at430- 31. I n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entforthe J udi ci al D i s t r i cti n t hi s cas e, the D i s t r i ctC our tl ooked t o al l thr ee F i t chik fact ors. In C all ah an , w e tho rou g h lyan aly ze d the s ec o n d an d thir d Fi t chi k fac t or s as appl i ed t o t he D i s t r i ct , s t at i ng: [t ] he Penns y l vani a cons t i tut i on pr ovi des forthe ves t i ng of the C om m onw eal t h’ s j udi ci al pow eri n a “uni fi ed j udi ci al s y s t em” w hi ch i ncl udes al l of the cour t s i n Penns y l vani a. Pa. C ons t
. ar t
. V , § 1. M or eover , t he cons t i tut i on pr ovi des thatthe P enn sy l van i a S up rem e C ou rtw i l l exerci se “ g e n e r a l s u p e r v i s o r y a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y” o v e rt h e u n i f

i e d j u d i c i a l s y s t e m. P a . Co n s t
. a r t
. V, §§ 1, 2, and 10. A l l cour t s and age nci es of the u n if ied ju d icia l sy ste m , inc lu d in g th e P h ilad e lp h ia M u n icip a l C o u rt, are p a rt o f “ C o m m o n w e a lth governm ent ” and thus ar e s t at e r atherthan l ocal agenc i es . See Pa. C ons t
. ar t
. V , § 6( c) ; 42 Pa. C ons . St at
. A nn. § 102 ( W es tSupp. 1999) ; 42 Pa.11 C o n s. S tat
. § 3 0 1 (W est 1 9 8 1 ). C a lla h a n , 2 0 7 F .3 d a t 6 7 2
. W e conc l uded that“[t ] he author i t i es w e have r evi ew ed m ake i tper fec t l ycl earthatthe j udi ci al defe ndant s ar e not i ndepende ntof the C om m onw eal t h and har dl ycan be r egar ded a s h a v i n g s i g n i f

i c a n ta u t o n o myf

r o m th e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C our t
. T heyar e partof the uni fi ed j udi ci al s y s t em subj ectt o t he contr ol of the Supr eme C our t
. ” I d. at673. B enn has m ade no ar gum ent s t hatal t erouranal y s i s , and w e ther efor e conc l ude that t he Fi t chi k fac t or s s t r ongl yfavorE l eventh A m endment im m u n ity f

o r t h e D is tr ic t. B enn r ecogni zes thatnei t herci t i es norcount i es part ake of Penns y l vani a’ s E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni t y . H e thus ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i cti s “mer el ya l ocal ent i t yundes ervi ng of the pr ot ect i on of the El eventh A m endment , ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at8, and not es t hathi s pay chec k w as i s s ued bythe C i t yof P h ilad e lp h ia; th e u n io n to w h ich h e b e lo n g e d n e g o tiate d its c o n tra c ts w ith th e C ity ; h e w a s re q u ire d to liv e w ith in P h il ad elph ia cityli m it s; an d the c ar h e w as g iven fo r w o rk a ss ig n m e n ts w a s o w n e d b yth e C ity , id. a t 1 7 . W e n o ted in C al l ahan thatt he s t atut or yfundi ng s cheme fors t at e court s pl ace s cons i der abl e fi nanci al r es pons i bi l i t yforthe oper at i on of the c o u rts o n to th e c o u n ties . C a llah a n , 2 0 7 F .3 d a t 6 7 0 -7 1 . In f a c t, t he Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a has hel d t hatthe bi fur cat ed f u n d in g sc h e m e p re sc rib e d b yth e G e n e ra l A ss e m b lyis “ in confl i ctw i t h t he i nt entcl ear l yexpr es s ed i n t he cons t i tut i on that t he j udi ci al s y s t em be uni fi ed. ” C ount yof A l l eghenyv. C o m m o n w e a lth , 5 3 4 A .2 d 7 6 0 , 7 6 5 (P a . 1 9 8 7 ). W hati s s i gni fi canti n C ount yof A l l egheny , forthe i s s ue b ef o re u s, is th at un d er the P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt ’s i nt erpr et at i on of the s t at e cons t i tut i on, the J udi ci al D i s t r i ctand i t s count erpar t s ar e s t at e ent i t i es . T hattheyar e l ocal l yfunded m aybe pr obl emat i c fora var i etyof r eas ons , buti tdoes not t r ans form t hem i nt o l ocal ent i t i es forE l eventh A m endment p u rp o s e s .12 N o r is it d e c isiv e o f

th e Ju d icia l D istric t’s e n tit lem e n t to i m m uni t yt hatt he C i t ym ayhave a n agr eementfor i ndemni fi cat i on w i t h t he J udi ci al D i s t r i ct , as B enn as s ert s . T hat ques t i on w as deci s i vel yans w er ed bythe Supr eme C our ti n D oe, w her e the C our ts t at ed, “[t ] he El eventh A m endmentpr ot ect s the S tate f ro m th e risk o f

a d v e rse ju d g m e n ts e v e n th o u g h th e S tate m aybe i ndemni fi ed bya thi r d par t y . ” D oe, 519 U
. S. at431. T he Penns y l vani a cons t i tut i on envi s i ons a uni fi ed s t at e j udi ci al s y s te m , o f

w h ic h th e J u d ic ia l D is tr ic t is a n in te g ra l c o m p o n e n t. F ro m a h o listic a n a ly sis o f th e Ju d icia l D istric t’s re latio n sh ip w ith th e sta te, it is u n d e n iab le th a t P e n n sy lv a n ia is th e re a l p a rty in in ter e st in B e n n ’s s u it an d w o u ld b e su b jec ted to b o th in d ig n itya n d a n im p e rm iss ib le r isk o f leg a l li a b ili tyif

th e su it w er e al l ow ed t o pr ocee d. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthat t he J udi ci al D i s t r i cthas E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni t yw hi ch fu n cti o n s as a n ab so lute b ar to B en n ’s A D A claim
. W e the ref o re w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t.

____________________