![]() Whether HCJFS’s functions fall under the purview of state or local government.Whether state or local officials appoint HCJFS board members.The language state courts and statutes use to describe HCJFS and the degree of control the state has over HCJFS.The State of Ohio’s potential legal liability for a judgment against HCJFS.In order to determine whether HCJFS an arm of the state and thus entitled to sovereign immunity, the Court uses the following four factors: Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that prevents the government from being sued. In this case, the issue is whether HCJFS is categorized as an arm of the state or as a political subdivision. If an agency is considered an arm of the state, it is immune from a suit brought against it by a citizen under Title I of the ADA. Sovereign Immunity is Proper for a State but not for a Political Subdivision ![]() The Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the second two issues. The Court first noted that it was proper to review only the issue of sovereign immunity in the case at hand. Proper Jurisdiction Under Collateral Order to Review the Issues Whether the District Court erred in finding that Lowe was qualified for her position in its determination that she had established a prima facie case of disability discrimination.Īrguments & Analysis 1.Whether Lowe failed to exhaust administrative remedies before initiating a lawsuit. ![]() Whether HCJFS is entitled to sovereign immunity and thus immune from trial and liability against a Title I claim under the ADA.The issues before the Court on appeal are: HCJFS appealed the District Court’s denial of summary judgment on the disability discrimination and retaliation claims. Additionally, they denied summary judgment on Lowe’s disability discrimination and retaliation claims. The District Court did grant HCJFS summary judgment on a number of Lowe’s complaints, but ultimately concluded that HCJFS was not entitled to sovereign immunity. HCJFS filed a motion to dismiss, or alternatively a motion for summary judgment, arguing, in part that it was an arm of the State of Ohio, entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity on all of Lowe’s claims. Following her termination, Lowe amended her complaint to include allegations regarding her termination and a number of additional claims. This termination came after an unfavorable performance review, two transfers (to similar positions), and a disciplinary proceeding, as well as two years of clashes between Lowe and her supervisors, and a general deterioration of Lowe’s working relationship with them. On July 6, 2005, HCJFS terminated Lowe while she was out on one of several leaves pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). ![]() On June 3, 2005, the EEOC issued a second “right-to-sue” letter to Lowe, based on her second charge of discrimination. Lowe commenced this action pro se in federal District Court on February 23, 2005, based on her initial EEOC complaint and the “right-to-sue” letter. On December 15, 2004, Lowe filed an additional charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging retaliation following her initial complaint. On November 4, 2004, the EEOC issued Lowe a “right-to-sue” letter based on her complaint. On June 10, 2004, Lowe filed a charge of discrimination against HCJFS, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging race discrimination, disability discrimination and retaliation claims. In May 2003 Lowe requested that HCJFS grant her reasonable accommodations for her disability. Lowe has a history of depression and in 2002, she was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). On January 20, 2000, Uneek Lowe (plaintiff-appellee) was hired by Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”) as a Medicaid eligibility technician. Keywords: sovereign immunity, state & local government Facts of the Case ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |