Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The Treatise is based upon federal appellate court decisions from 1996 to 2008. We are currently in the process of updating the Treatise. Until that update is complete, it is possible that certain cases cited in the Treatise may no longer represent current law.

-------------------------

Chapter 9 - Employer's Defenses
9.300 ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
9.320 Eleventh Amendment immunity
9.321 General principles
9.321.40 Cases addressing whether a particular entity is an arm of the state

9.321.42 School district

2d Circuit

In Woods v. Rondout Valley Central School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 466 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2006), the court explained:

   With respect to New York, in Fay v. South Colonie Central School District, 802 F.2d 21, we concluded that local school districts were not arms of that state for purposes of claiming Eleventh Amendment immunity, a view also shared by federal courts considering similar claims by school districts in Alaska, see Holz v. Nenana City Pub. Sch. Dist., 347 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2003), in Arizona, see Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch. Dist. No. 205, 343 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003), in Nevada, see Eason v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 303 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2002), in New Mexico, see Duke v. Grady Mun. Schs., 127 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 1997), in Pennsylvania, see Lester H. ex rel. Octavia P. v. Gilhool, 916 F.2d 865 (3d Cir. 1990), in Texas, see Lopez v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 817 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Walton v. Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297 (5th Cir. 1995), in Illinois, see Gary A. v. New Trier High Sch. Dist. No. 203, 796 F.2d 940 (7th Cir. 1986), in Wyoming, see Stoddard v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 590 F.2d 829 (10th Cir. 1979), in Kansas, see Unified Sch. Dist. No. 480 v. Epperson, 583 F.2d 1118 (10th Cir. 1978), in South Dakota, see Wigg v. Sioux Falls Sch. Dist. 49-5, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (D.S.D. 2003), rev'd in part on other grounds, 382 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2004), and in Delaware, see Eckerd v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 475 F. Supp. 1350 (D. Del. 1979).

Woods, 466 F.3d at ___ (footnote omitted).

In footnote 3, the court noted that there are some courts who taken the minority view:

   Some courts have held that, under the particular educational structure in a minority of the states, local school boards or school districts are properly viewed as arms of the sovereign entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See, e.g., Belanger v. Madera Unified Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (California); De Levay v. Richmond County Sch. Bd., 284 F.2d 340 (4th Cir. 1960) (per curiam) (Virginia); Smith v. Sch. Dist., 324 F. Supp. 2d 786 (D.S.C. 2004) (South Carolina); Biggs v. Bd. of Educ., 229 F. Supp. 2d 437 (D. Md. 2002) (Maryland).

Woods, 466 F.3d at ___ n. 3.