Opinion ID: 2814835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims fail

Text: BECAUSE THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS IS ENTITLED TO ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY Plaintiffs’ claims relate to alleged gender discrimination. We cannot address the merits of those claims because we agree with the district court that the Board is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. As we stated in Manders: In Eleventh Amendment cases, this Court uses four factors to determine whether an entity is an “arm of the state” in carrying out a particular function: (1) how state law defines the entity; (2) what degree of control the State maintains over the entity; (3) where the entity derives its funds; and (4) who is responsible for judgments against the entity. 338 F.3d at 1309. In determining whether a defendant is an “arm of the state,” Manders directs us to focus on the particular function in which the defendant was 2 Although Lyes addressed only the single employer issue in the context of Title VII, plaintiffs make no argument indicating that the corresponding FMLA analysis should be different. Also, we summarily reject plaintiffs’ other arguments in support of their Title VII and FMLA claims. For example, their argument that the Board is a mere agent of the County is simply inconsistent with Georgia’s statutory scheme. 8 Case: 14-14475 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 9 of 15 engaged when taking the actions out of which liability is alleged to arise. Id. at 1308. The particular function at issue in this case involves the discipline and termination of plaintiffs who were either working as, or training for, appraiser positions. We address the Manders factors in turn. 3
As the above discussion indicates, Georgia law establishes the Board as a separate entity, independent of the local county government. Indeed, the creation of the boards of assessors by the state legislature was part of a state-level effort to equalize taxes on real property throughout the state. Georgia Code § 48-5-260, entitled “Purpose of Part” provides in relevant part: It is the purpose and intent of this part to: (1) Create, provide, and require a comprehensive system for the equalization of taxes on real property within this state by the establishment of uniform state-wide forms, records, and procedures 3 Plaintiffs’ argument against Eleventh Amendment immunity in this case is that the Board is a division of the County and is acting for the County – not the State. For the first time in plaintiffs’ reply brief, they cite our recent decision in Lightfoot v. Henry County School District, 771 F.3d 764 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that Georgia school districts are political subdivisions of the State like a municipality or county, thus holding that they are a division neither of the State nor the County, and accordingly are not an “arm of the state” entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity). However, even in their reply brief, plaintiffs do not argue in a straightforward manner that the Board is an independent entity that is neither part of the State nor the County. As in Manders, we decline to address this very different issue which has not been briefed at all – i.e., whether the Board is a separate entity and neither part of the State nor the County. 338 F.3d at 1328 n.54. We note, however, that Georgia’s boards of assessors have nothing comparable to the autonomy of the school district in Lightfoot, which had the authority to levy taxes, issue bonds, etc., and which was treated in the Georgia statutes as a political subdivision comparable to a municipality or county. 9 Case: 14-14475 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 10 of 15 and by the establishment of a competent, full-time staff for each county of this state to: (A) Assist the Board of Tax Assessors in each county in developing the proper information for setting tax assessments on property: (B) Maintain the tax assessment records for each county; and (C) Provide for state-wide duties and qualification standards for such staffs; (2) Provide for the examination of county tax digests in order to determine whether property valuation is uniform between the counties. The Georgia statutory scheme obviously contemplates that its boards of assessors shall not only constitute a separate entity from the local county government, but the statutes reflect a clear intent that the boards of assessors shall be independent of the local county government. Georgia Code § 48-5-290 provides that, although members of the boards of assessors are appointed by the county governing authority, no close relative of a county commissioner is eligible to serve as a member of a board of assessors. Moreover, once appointed, the local county government cannot change the length of the term of existing members of boards of assessors. Id. § 48-5-295(a). And a member of a county board of assessors may be removed only for cause after a hearing before a judge of the superior court of the county. Id. § 48-5-295(b). Finally, and significantly in light of our mandate to assess this Eleventh Amendment issue in light of the particular 10 Case: 14-14475 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 11 of 15 function giving rise to plaintiffs’ claim, the independence of Georgia’s boards of assessors is reflected in the Georgia cases holding that local county governments have no authority at all with respect to the discipline or termination of employees of the boards of assessors. See Chambers, 495 S.E.2d at 8. We conclude that the first Manders factor weighs overwhelmingly in favor of Eleventh Amendment immunity for the Board. We turn now to the second factor. B. Georgia statutes and case law vest control over Georgia’s boards of assessors in the State, not in the local county government The second Manders factor looks at where the state law vests control. With respect to the particular function at issue in this case, Georgia’s case law expressly provides that the local county government shall have no control at all over the discipline or termination of employees of the boards of assessors. See Chambers, 495 S.E.2d at 8. Moreover, there is extensive state-level control over virtually every aspect of the work of Georgia’s boards of assessors. State law establishes the minimum number of appraisers (O.C.G.A. § 48-5-262); the qualifications, duties, and compensation thereof (Id. § 48-5-263); the training thereof (Id. § 48-5- 268); and the procedures to be followed (Id. § 48-5-269). Finally, and significantly, the end product of the work of Georgia’s boards of assessors has to be approved or disapproved at the state level. Id. § 48-5-304 (relating to the statelevel approval of the tax digests). 11 Case: 14-14475 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 12 of 15 The state-level control in this case is all encompassing; by contrast, there is no control at all vested in the local county governments. This is especially true with respect to the particular function giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims; as noted, Chambers holds that local county governments have no authority at all with respect to the discipline or termination of the Board’s employees. 495 S.E.2d at 8. This control factor of Manders points more overwhelmingly toward Eleventh Amendment immunity than did this factor in Manders itself. We next address the third Manders factor. C. Source of funds for the Board The Georgia statutory scheme for funding its boards of tax assessors very closely parallels the funding scheme for sheriffs as described in Manders, 338 F.3d at 1323-24. Although the County “bears the major burden of funding[,]” the Board here, just as in Manders, is thus funded “because the State so mandates.” Id. at 1323. State law determines the minimum number of appraisers for each county and sets their qualifications and duties. O.C.G.A. §§ 48-5-262, 48-5-263(a)-(b). The “rate of compensation for each appraiser grade” is determined by the state revenue commissioner pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 48-5-263(a)(1), and O.C.G.A. § 48- 5-263(c) mandates that: “Staff appraisers shall be paid from county funds.” And as in Manders, “both state and county funds are involved[,]” 338 F.3d at 1324, 12 Case: 14-14475 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 13 of 15 because a portion of the salary of these appraisers is paid by the State. O.C.G.A. § 48-5-267. Thus, for the same reasons that prevailed in Manders, the “state involvement is sufficient to tilt the third factor of the Eleventh Amendment analysis toward immunity.” See 338 F.3d at 1324. We turn next to the fourth Manders factor. D. Source of funds that will pay any adverse judgment As with the third factor, the situation of Georgia’s boards of assessors with respect to the issue of who will pay any adverse federal judgment is very similar to the situation that existed in Manders. There, Georgia law placed the legal liability for paying the adverse judgment on neither the County nor the State, and “Sheriff Peterson thus apparently would have to pay any adverse federal court judgment … out of the budget of the Sheriff’s Office … [which] would reduce his budget, and the practical reality is that Sheriff Peterson must recoup that money from somewhere … [and thus] both county and state funds are implicated.” Manders, 338 F.3d at 1327. The Manders court also noted that [n]ever has the Supreme Court required an actual drain on the state treasury . . . because the Eleventh Amendment is rooted in a recognition that the States . . . maintain certain attributes of sovereignty, and a purpose of the Eleventh Amendment is to accord the States the respect owed them . . . and not to affront the dignity or integrity of a state by requiring a state to respond to lawsuits in federal courts. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). 13 Case: 14-14475 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 14 of 15 As in Manders, plaintiffs have pointed to no Georgia statute that makes a Georgia county liable for an adverse judgment against one of Georgia’s boards of assessors, and we are aware of no such statute. The Georgia Supreme Court in Wayne County Board of Commissioners v. Warren, 223 S.E.2d 133 (Ga. 1976), held that “[a] county is not liable to suit for any cause of action unless made so by statute.” Id. at 134 (quoting then O.C.G.A. § 23-1502, now codified at O.C.G.A. § 36-1-4) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither are we aware of any statute making the State liable for an adverse judgment against one of Georgia’s boards of assessors. Thus, again as in Manders, the Board itself “apparently would have to pay any adverse federal court judgment,” and the “practical reality” is precisely the same because “both county and state funds are implicated.” See 338 F.3d at 1327. Just as in Manders, in this case too, “[t]he State’s ‘integrity’ is not limited to who foots the bill, and, at a minimum, the liability-for-adverse-judgment factor does not defeat [the Board’s] immunity claim.” See id. at 1328. In summary, our application of the Manders factors to the facts of this case is as follows. With respect to factors one, three, and four, the relevant facts, as dictated by the statutory scheme, are virtually indistinguishable from those in Manders. And with respect to Manders’s second factor – what degree of control the State maintains over the entity – the facts of this case as dictated by the 14 Case: 14-14475 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 15 of 15 statutory scheme point more overwhelmingly toward Eleventh Amendment immunity than in Manders itself. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Manders controls and that the Board is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. 4