Opinion ID: 472144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: EAHCA Claims Against the State

Text: 124 The plaintiffs argue that the district court dismissed their EAHCA damage claims against the state based on an erroneous standard by which to measure a valid claim under the statute. We do not reach this issue because, whatever the proper standard, we hold that the state is shielded by the Eleventh Amendment from damage liability under the EAHCA. 125 Doe and Smith cite two Ninth Circuit cases, Students of California School for the Blind v. Honig, 736 F.2d 538 (9th Cir.1984), vacated on other grounds, 471 U.S. 148, 105 S.Ct. 1820, 85 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) (per curiam) and Department of Education v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2360, 86 L.Ed.2d 260 (1985), for the proposition that the State of California has waived its sovereign immunity with regard to the EAHCA. Although these cases formerly were controlling, they can carry no force in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985). In Scanlon, the Court held that the State of California is immune from suits for monetary relief under Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. We believe the Court's reasoning compels a similar result with respect to the EAHCA. 126 The Court began in Scanlon by determining that California had not waived its general immunity to suit in federal court. Although Art. III, Sec. 5 of the California Constitution provides that [s]uits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as shall be directed by law, the Court held that this language did not satisfy the stringent test necessary for waiver under the Eleventh Amendment. See id., 105 S.Ct. at 3147. [F]or a State statute or constitutional provision to constitute a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court explained, it must specify the State's intention to subject itself to suit in federal court. Id. The California Constitution did not so specify. 127 The Court next determined that Congress had not abrogated the states' immunity in enacting the Rehabilitation Act. See id. Acknowledging Congress's power to abrogate sovereign immunity pursuant to section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court cautioned that congressional exercise of that power should be inferred only when such an intention is expressed in unmistakable language in the statute itself. Id. at 3148. In the Court's estimation, the language in the Rehabilitation Act providing remedies for violations of section 504 did not meet this test. See id. at 3149. 128 Finally, the Court held that California had not tacitly consented to suit in federal court merely because various provisions of the Rehabilitation Act are addressed to the States and because California participat[ed] in programs funded under the statute. Id. at 3150. The Act's language, the Court concluded, falls far short of manifesting a clear intent to condition participation in the programs funded under the Act on a State's consent to waive its constitutional immunity. Id. 129 Scanlon thus enunciated a three-step test for resolving sovereign immunity questions that we must apply: (1) Has the state expressly waived its general immunity to suit in federal court? (2) Has Congress expressed in unmistakable language in the Act its intent to abrogate states' sovereign immunity pursuant to section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment? and (3) Does the act manifest a clear intent to condition a state's receipt of federal benefits on the state's waiver of its constitutional immunity? Applying each step of this test to the EAHCA, we conclude that California retains its sovereign immunity from damage suits. 130 First, California has not waived its general immunity to suit in federal court. See Scanlon, 105 S.Ct. at 3147. Second, Congress did not unequivocally express in the Act its intent to abrogate California's sovereign immunity. The EAHCA provision authorizing suits in federal courts provides in relevant part: 131 Any party aggrieved by the findings and decision made under subsection (b) [providing for administrative review] ... shall have the right to bring a civil action ... in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States without regard to the amount in controversy. 132 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(2). This language simply does not pass muster under the stringent Scanlon test. Third, although the EAHCA--like the Rehabilitation Act--imposes various duties on the states, it nowhere explicitly conditions their right to receive funds on their willingness to waive their sovereign immunity. 133 Thus, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' damage claims under the EAHCA.