Opinion ID: 1937341
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims for Back Wages and Compensatory Damages

Text: DOC, ACI, Campbell, and Carter do not provide any legal authority in support of their assertion that they are entitled to sovereign immunity. Instead, they simply state: The law is clear that the State, its agencies, or the employees within those agencies, [have] absolute immunity against a suit for damages. (Brief of DOC, ACI, Campbell, and Carter, pp. 10-11.) This Court does not typically consider general assertions that are not supported by legal argument and supporting authorities; [11] nonetheless, [t]he State is immune from suit, and its immunity cannot be waived by the Legislature or by any other State authority. Larkins v. Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 806 So.2d 358, 363 (Ala.2001)(citing Druid City Hosp. Bd. v. Epperson, 378 So.2d 696 (Ala.1979)). `The long-standing legal principle of state sovereign immunity is written into Alabama's Constitution. Article I, § 14, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 provides that `the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.'' Larkins, 806 So.2d at 363 (quoting Alabama State Docks Terminal Ry. v. Lyles, 797 So.2d 432, 434-35 (Ala. 2001), quoting in turn Ex parte Franklin County Dep't of Human Res., 674 So.2d 1277, 1279 (Ala.1996)). Additionally, officers or agents of the State acting in their official capacities are immune from suit if the result would affect the financial status of the state treasury. Alabama Agric. & Mech. Univ. v. Jones, 895 So.2d 867, 872-73 (Ala.2004). Therefore, even where the State has not properly argued sovereign immunity as a defense to an action, `a trial or an appellate court should, at any stage of the proceedings, dismiss a suit when it becomes convinced that it is a suit against the State and contrary to Sec. 14 of the Constitution.' Larkins, 806 So.2d at 364 (quoting Lyles, 797 So.2d at 435, quoting in turn Aland v. Graham, 287 Ala. 226, 250 So.2d 677, 678 (1971)). DOC is a department of the State and therefore is entitled to sovereign immunity. Haley v. Barbour County, 885 So.2d 783, 788 (Ala.2004). ACI is a division of DOC and is therefore also entitled to sovereign immunity. Both Campbell and Carter, as officers and agents of the State, are entitled to immunity. See 885 So.2d at 788 (holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars actions against state officers in their official capacities when those actions are, in effect, actions against the State and holding also that the commissioner of DOC is entitled to state-agent immunity because the commissioner represents a department of the State). In general, the State is immune from any lawsuit that would directly affect a contract or property right of the State or result in the plaintiff's recovery of money from the State. See Jones, 895 So.2d at 873. A claim for backpay is a claim for compensatory damages. 895 So.2d at 875-76 (holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars claims for retrospective relief and backpay against a state university based on a breach of an employment contract); Vaughan v. Sibley, 709 So.2d 482, 486 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). The doctrine of sovereign immunity thus bars an action seeking backpay. Jones, 895 So.2d at 876; Vaughan, 709 So.2d at 486. Therefore, the trial court did not err in entering a summary judgment dismissing Latham's claims for back wages and compensatory damages, which are barred by Art. I, § 14, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901.