Court Opinion

ID: 9927676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 19:00:49.040201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:12.301623
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20423      Document: 00517047341         Page: 1   Date Filed: 01/29/2024

            United States Court of Appeals
                 for the Fifth Circuit                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________                              FILED
                                                                     January 29, 2024
                                   No. 23-20423
                                 Summary Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
                                 ____________

   Letitia Denise Rudison,

                                                            Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

   MD Anderson Cancer Center,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:23-CV-543
                   ______________________________

   Before Davis, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:
          Defendant-Appellant, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (“M.D.
   Anderson”), appeals the district court’s order denying its Rule 12(b)(1) and
   12(b)(6) motions seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s suit filed under the Age
   Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Because M.D. Anderson is
   entitled to sovereign immunity, we REVERSE and REMAND with
   instructions to dismiss Plaintiff’s suit.
          Plaintiff-Appellee, Letitia Denise Rudison, filed a complaint against
   her former employer, M.D. Anderson, alleging employment discrimination
Case: 23-20423              Document: 00517047341           Page: 2      Date Filed: 01/29/2024

                                            No. 23-20423

   on the basis of her age under the ADEA. M.D. Anderson is a component
   institution of The University of Texas at Houston, which is under the
   management and control of the board of regents of The University of Texas
   System.1 This Court has held that “public universities are entitled to
   sovereign immunity as arms of the state,”2 and we have “consistently treated
   health institutions of the UT System . . . as instrumentalities of the State of
   Texas.”3
           Plaintiff does not dispute that M.D. Anderson is entitled to sovereign
   immunity as an arm of the state of Texas under the Eleventh Amendment,
   but she argues that M.D. Anderson has waived its immunity by accepting
   federal funds under Title IX. As M.D. Anderson points out, Plaintiff has not
   sued under Title IX, but under the ADEA. In Kimel v. Florida Board of
   Regents,4 the Supreme Court held that “Congress did not validly abrogate the
   States’ sovereign immunity to suits by private individuals” when it enacted
   the ADEA.5 Moreover, we previously have determined in rejecting this
   identical argument in an ADEA case, that “Texas’s general acceptance of
   federal funding does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity from
   discrimination suits.”6

           _____________________
           1
           See Tex. Educ. Code § 73.001(3) (listing The University of Texas M.D.
   Anderson Cancer Center as a component institution of The University of Texas at
   Houston).
           2
               Daniel v. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr., 960 F.3d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation
   omitted).
           3
               Id. (citations omitted).
           4
               528 U.S. 62 (2000).
           5
               Id. at 91.
           6
             Sullivan v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. at Hous. Dental Branch, 217 F. App’x.
   391, 395 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (unpublished). Unpublished opinions issued on or

                                                  2
Case: 23-20423        Document: 00517047341              Page: 3       Date Filed: 01/29/2024

                                         No. 23-20423

           Based on the foregoing, we REVERSE and REMAND with
   instructions to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter
   jurisdiction on the basis of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh
   Amendment.
           REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS TO
   DISMISS.

           _____________________
   after January 1, 1996, may be considered as persuasive authority. See Ballard v. Burton, 444
   F.3d 391, 401 (5th Cir. 2006); 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

                                                3