• Menu
  • Skip to left header navigation
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Contact Us (317) 692-9000

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Directions

Kroger Gardis Regas, LLP

Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP

  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
You are here: Home / Government Practice / Eleventh Amendment Prevents Suit Against Indiana For FLSA

Eleventh Amendment Prevents Suit Against Indiana For FLSA

April 11, 2016 //  by Brian Bosma

Brian-Bosma-Web-BlogThe Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in Nunez v. Indiana Department of Child Services that Indiana may not be sued for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Two employees of Indiana Department of Child Services (the “Department”) sued the Department for violation of FLSA alleging that the employees had not been paid for overtime they were required to work.  The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, holding that Indiana was immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment (which provides “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State”).  In short, the Eleventh Amendment prevents private suits against states in federal court.

The United States Supreme Court held in 1999 that the FLSA did not abrogate immunity, but that states could consent to suits for violation of the FLSA. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999).

A waiver of immunity can occur in any of 3 circumstances:  When a plaintiff seeks prospective equitable relief against a state official, when Congress abrogates immunity through legislative enactment (which did not occur with FLSA per Alden), or when a state waives immunity and consents to suit.

The plaintiffs claimed that Indiana had waived immunity and consented to suit.  First they claimed a waiver within the Indiana Code which contains a statute of limitations for contract claims against the state.  However, the Seventh Circuit rejected that such general language could create a waiver.

The plaintiffs countered that the Tort Claims Act expressly disclaims a waiver, and since the contract statute of limitations did not disclaim a waiver, it should be read as granting a waiver.  The Seventh Circuit held that one express disclaimer of warranty cannot be used to create a “sweeping implied waiver of immunity for every other category of cases.”

Plaintiffs also claimed a three-step argument: Indiana permits units to enter into contracts, an employment relationship is contractual, and the FLSA is read into all contracts.

The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument as well, holding among other things, that there was again no explicit waiver of immunity, as required by law.

As a result, private citizens may not sue Indiana for alleged violations of the FLSA.

This article is not intended to be a definitive discussion regarding the complexities of the issues discussed above.  To continue a discussion of the issues presented in this article, or if you are facing a dispute now, please contact Brian Bosma (bbosma@kgrlaw.com), or any of our attorney’s here. It would be our pleasure to assist you.

Category: Blog, Government PracticeTag: Brian Bosma

Previous Post: « Landlords with blanket criminal bans now violate the Fair Housing Act
Next Post: Architects and Engineers – “must avoid” contract terms »

Primary Sidebar

If you are interested in our services please fill out the form below.

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone (required)

    Subject

    Your Message

    RECENT POSTS

    Practical Legal Issues regarding Vaping and Schools

    The tobacco use intervention strategies of the past may have low …

    The Federal Trade Commission Announced a Ban on Non-Compete Agreements: What Does That Mean for Your Business?

    We won’t bury the lede: it could be huge, but it’s also probably …

    2 New Attorneys, 1 Paralegal Join KGR

    KGR is thrilled to start the New Year with two new attorneys Wes …

    KGR Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against City of Bloomington in Free Speech Case

    Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and its local chapter on the Indiana …

    KGR Attorneys File Lawsuit Against USA Track & Field to Advance Athlete Health & Safety

    KGR’s Sports and Entertainment Law Team, led by KGR Partner Bill …

    Footer

    Indianapolis Office

    Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP

    111 Monument Circle, Suite 900 Indianapolis, IN 46204

    (317) 692-9000
    (317) 264-6832
    Directions

    Connect with us!

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter

    Newsletter

    Select list(s) to subscribe to


    By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP, 111 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, IN, 46204, http://www.kgrlaw.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

    Copyright © 2023 · Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP · Log in