At page 594 Lacking jurisdiction over USERRA claims against states13 citing casesholding that the court lacked jurisdiction over an US-ERRA claim brought by a person against a state employer because the amendment to USERRA added a new section which unmistakably conferred only on state courts jurisdiction over suits against a state employer
- Breaker v. Bemidji State Univ., 899 N.W.2d 515 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017).published(Congress’s intention to 'limit USERRA suits-against states to state courts is unmistakable.)
- Brauckmiller v. Univ. of Texas at San Antonio, No. 5:23-cv-01182 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2024).(concluding court lacked jurisdiction over USERRA claim based on jurisdictional provision)
- John W. Wood, Jr. v. John Kelly, No. 17-11055 (11th Cir. Dec. 14, 2017).unpublishedTownsend v. Univ. of Ala., 543 F.3d 478, 485 (9th Cir. 2008); McIntosh v. Partridge, 540 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2008); Velasquez v. Frapwell, 165 F.3d 593, 594 (7th Cir. 1999).
- Townsend v. Univ. of Alaska, 543 F.3d 478 (9th Cir. 2008).published Indeed, not only has Congress failed to evince an intent to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity, “Congress’s intention to limit USERRA suits against states to state courts is unmistakable.” See Velasquez v. Frapwell, 165 F.3d 593, 594…
- Nanda v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Illinois, 219 F. Supp. 2d 911 (N.D. Ill. 2001).publishedSee Holman v. State of Indiana, 211 F.3d 399 , 402 n. 2 (7th Cir.2000) (sex harassment claims against state employer are permitted) (citing Fitzpatrick, 427 U.S. at 448-49 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 ; Velasquez v. Frapwell, 160 F.3d 389, 395 (7th Cir…
- Brown v. Pitzer (In Re Brown), 249 B.R. 303 (S.D. Ind. 2000).publishedBrown is a public employee working for Indiana University, an arm of the State of Indiana itself (see Velasquez v. Frapwell, 165 F.3d 593, 594 (7th Cir.1999)), so the contributions to the pension fund on his behalf were effected pursuant t…
- Steven J. Holman v. State of Indiana & Indiana Dep't of Transp., 211 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2000).published See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 448-449, 456 (1976); Velasquez v. Frapwell, 160 F.3d 389, 395 (7th Cir. 1998), vacated in part on other grounds, 165 F.3d 593, 594 (7th Cir. 1999).
- Steven Shadle v. Pennsylvania State Sys. of Higher Educ., No. 4:25-cv-00476 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 2025).Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 75 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005). 76 See Doc. 12 ¶¶ 2-5; 24 Pa. Stat. § 20-2002-A(a). 77 38 U.S.C. § 4323 (b)(2); see 38 U.S.C. § 4303 (14) (defining “State” to “includ[e] the agen…
- McIntosh v. Partridge, 540 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2008).publishedSee Velasquez v. Frapwell, 165 F.3d 593, 594 (7th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (holding that “Congress’s intention to limit USERRA suits against states to state courts is unmistakable”).
- Risner v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 577 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Ohio 2008).published(holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over an US-ERRA claim brought by a person against a state employer because the amendment to USERRA added a new section which unmistakably conferred only on state courts jurisdi…)
Show 1 more citing case
- Keating v. Univ. of South Dakota, 386 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (D.S.D. 2005).published(interpreting amendment to US- *1105 ERRA, 38 U.S.C. § 4323 (b), in context of claim brought by person against state employer)
At page 593 Congress’s intention to limit 6 USERRA suits against states to state courts is unmistakable[.]1 citing case
- Kinnune v. State of Washington, No. 2:23-cv-00026 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 21, 2025).(Congress’s intention to limit 6 USERRA suits against states to state courts is unmistakable[.])
Other citing cases
- David R. Smith v. Tennessee Nat'l Guard, 387 S.W.3d 570 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).published
v.
Dorothy J. FRAPWELL and the Trustees of Indiana University, Defendants-Appellees, and United States of America, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant
In our opinion in this case issued on November 12, 1998, and reported at 160 F.3d 389 (7th Cir.1998), we held that the plaintiffs claim under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301 et seq., against the Trustees of Indiana University, an arm of the State of Indiana, was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Later we learned that on the day before our decision was issued, Congress had amended USERRA in the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998, Pub.L. No. 105-368 (Nov. 11, 1998). We asked the parties to submit supplemental memoranda concerning the possible impact of the amendment on our decision; the defendants and the federal government have responded; the latter in the form of a petition to vacate so much of our decision as relates to USERRA.
The amendment to USERRA, so far as bears on this case, adds a new section conferring only on state courts jurisdiction over suits against a state employer, 38 U.S.C. § 4323(b), and makes the new jurisdictional provision applicable to pending cases, Pub.L.[*594] No. 105-368, § 211(b)(1), and hence to this ease. The defendants argue that jurisdiction continues in the federal courts under the general federal-question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which section 211 of the statute amending USERRA does not purport to repeal. The argument has no merit; Congress’s intention to limit USER-RA suits against states to state courts is unmistakable; the defendant’s arguments that this ease was finally decided because the district court issued a final decision and so the amendment is inapplicable, and that if it is applicable it is unconstitutional, also plainly lack merit.
We conclude that we lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs USERRA claim, though not over his other claim, which is under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1974. We therefore vacate so much of our decision as relates to the state’s Eleventh Amendment defense and, as is customary, United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 41, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950), we also vacate the relevant ruling by the district court. Our judgment affirming the dismissal of the suit is not affected, however.