Brian Royster v. New Jersey State Police(075926)
227 N.J. 482, 33 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 326, 152 A.3d 900 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's sovereign immunity from federal claims, such as those under the ADA, is not waived by defending a lawsuit in state court or by delay in asserting the defense, nor is the state equitably estopped from raising it. However, an identical state-law claim (e.g., LAD) mistakenly dismissed by a trial court, which is not subject to a statutory preclusion provision and for which the state waived immunity, can be reinstated in the interest of justice.
Facts:
- Brian Royster suffered from ulcerative colitis, a medical condition requiring immediate access to restroom facilities at his place of employment.
- Royster had an extensive history of hospitalizations to treat this condition, necessitating periodic medical leave from his employment with the New Jersey State Police (NJSP).
- Shortly after returning from a medical leave, the NJSP assigned Royster to an Organized Crime Task Force, which required him to conduct surveillance from a car.
- Despite Royster's repeated requests to be transferred to a position that provided access to a restroom, the NJSP kept him on the task force for the seven-month duration of the assignment.
- Royster alleged a continuous and systematic practice of racial and disability discrimination by the NJSP, including demeaning remarks, punitive employment actions, demotions, transfers, and denial of promotions.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Brian Royster filed a complaint against his employer, the New Jersey State Police (NJSP), alleging racial and disability discrimination claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) in trial court.
- The defendants (NJSP and seventeen individuals) collectively moved for summary judgment; the trial court dismissed some claims but preserved seven claims against the NJSP.
- At the close of Royster's case, defendants moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court dismissed all LAD claims (LAD retaliation, LAD discrimination-in-promotions, LAD hostile-work-environment, and LAD failure-to-accommodate) as precluded by CEPA's waiver provision.
- The trial court allowed the CEPA retaliation claim and the ADA failure-to-accommodate claim to proceed to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Royster on both the ADA and CEPA claims, awarding $500,000 in damages for the ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, which the judge capped at $300,000.
- Following the jury's decision, the NJSP moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), asserting sovereign immunity to bar Royster's ADA claim for the first time.
- The trial court denied NJSP's JNOV motion, holding that NJSP was estopped from asserting lack of jurisdiction after waiting over seven years and completion of the trial.
- NJSP appealed the trial court's denial of its JNOV motion to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed, holding that sovereign immunity precluded Royster's ADA claim and could be raised at any time, and rejected arguments of waiver or estoppel.
- Royster petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification, which was granted, limited to the issues of sovereign immunity on the ADA claim and whether it was waived.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state, by waiting to assert the defense of sovereign immunity until after a jury verdict in a discrimination action, either waive that defense through its litigation conduct or become estopped from asserting it, and was the plaintiff's identical state-law discrimination claim improvidently dismissed due to CEPA's waiver provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Solomon
No, the New Jersey State Police did not waive sovereign immunity through its litigation conduct, nor is it estopped from asserting it, thereby precluding Royster's ADA claim. However, yes, Royster's LAD claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodations was improvidently dismissed. Sovereign immunity is a fundamental aspect of state sovereignty, and New Jersey has long recognized freedom from suit for money judgments absent the State’s consent. An effective waiver of sovereign immunity requires a “clear and unequivocal statement of the Legislature.” While New Jersey has expressly waived sovereign immunity for claims brought under the LAD, the United States Supreme Court held that Congress's attempt to abrogate state sovereign immunity under Title I of the ADA was unconstitutional, thus NJSP enjoys sovereign immunity from ADA claims. Waiver of sovereign immunity can be premised on litigation conduct, as seen in Lapides v. Board of Regents where removing a case to federal court constituted consent to federal jurisdiction. However, merely appearing and defending against claims in state court, without invoking the court's jurisdiction for removal, is not the kind of purposeful conduct consistent with waiving the defense. Equitable estoppel, which requires a misrepresentation of material fact and unawareness of true facts, is rarely invoked against governmental entities and is not applicable here because Royster was always aware the NJSP was an arm of the State, and NJSP did not misrepresent its intent to waive immunity. The LAD failure-to-accommodate claim was improvidently dismissed by the trial court. CEPA's waiver provision only applies to causes of action requiring a finding of retaliatory conduct actionable under CEPA and does not apply to causes of action substantially independent of the CEPA claim. Royster’s LAD failure-to-accommodate claim was based on disability accommodation, not retaliation, making it distinct from the CEPA claim. Given that the LAD claim was identical to the ADA claim in its factual basis and required proofs, and the ADA claim survived a directed verdict, the LAD claim should have also survived. In the interests of justice and consistent with the liberal construction of the remedial LAD, the LAD failure-to-accommodate claim is reinstated, and the jury’s $500,000 award for the ADA claim is molded to the LAD claim, avoiding the ADA’s $300,000 damages cap.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Albin
I concur in the judgment that reinstates the LAD claim and upholds the jury’s damages award, as the outcome is eminently equitable. However, I dissent from the majority's rejection of a litigation-conduct exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The State litigated the ADA claim for over seven years, at great expense, and only asserted sovereign immunity after the jury returned a verdict in Royster's favor. Sovereign immunity, a common-law doctrine, should adapt to advance notions of fair play and equity, as demonstrated by the United States Supreme Court in Lapides v. Board of Regents, which recognized waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity through litigation conduct. This Court, as the final expositor of the common law, should similarly hold that a state's litigation conduct, especially where an opposing party detrimentally relies on it, can constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity. Allowing the State to assert immunity under these circumstances, after years of litigation, allows it to wield the doctrine as an instrument of injustice. Recognizing such an exception would encourage timely assertion of the defense, saving resources for all parties and the court system.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the New Jersey Supreme Court maintains a strict view on waiver of sovereign immunity, rejecting the argument that mere litigation conduct or estoppel by delay, even over many years, constitutes waiver for federal claims like the ADA. However, the Court also demonstrates a strong commitment to ensuring that plaintiffs can vindicate their rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). By reinstating the LAD claim that was identical to the barred ADA claim, the Court provides a critical safety net for plaintiffs whose federal claims might be impacted by sovereign immunity. This underscores the importance for litigants to strategically pursue analogous state-law claims, as these may offer relief even when federal avenues are foreclosed, particularly given the LAD’s broader scope and absence of damages caps compared to the ADA.
