Siler-Khodr v. University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________ m 00-50092 _______________ THERESA M. SILER-KHODR, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER SAN ANTONIO, ET AL., Defendants, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER SAN ANTONIO, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas _________________________ May 16, 2002 ON PETITION FOR Treating the petition for rehearing en banc REHEARING EN BANC as a petition for panel rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The court (Opinion August 24, 2001, 261 F.3d 542) having been polled at the request of one of the members of the court, and a majority of the Before POLITZ, DEMOSS, and STEWART, judges who are in regular active service not Circuit Judges. having voted in favor (FED. R. APP. P. 35 and 5TH CIR. R. 35), the petition for rehearing en PER CURIAM: banc is DENIED. JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge, with whom out of proportion to a supposed remedial or HAROLD R. DEMOSS, JR., Circuit Judge, joins, preventive object that it cannot be understood dissenting from the denial of rehearing en as responsive to, or designed to prevent, un- banc: constitutional behavior.” City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 520, 531 (1997). I respectfully dissent from the court’s fail- Although section 5 does give Congress the ure to grant en banc reconsideration in this im- power to enact “prophylactic” legislation that portant case. As a result of this failure, we prohibits conduct going beyond that which in have lost an opportunity to bring our Eleventh itself violates the Equal Protection Clause, sec- Amendment jurisprudence into conformity tion 5 legislation is unconstitutional if it “pro- with the Supreme Court’s recent caselaw. hibits substantially more state employment de- cisions and practices than would likely be held I. unconstitutional under the applicable equal In affirming a judgment under the Equal protection . . . standard.” Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Pay Act (“EPA”), the panel majority rejected Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 86 (2000). Texas's argument that application of the EPA to a state university violates the Eleventh If the majority opinion were written on a Amendment. Siler-Khodr v. Univ. Health Sci. blank slate, it would be even easier for me to Ctr., 261 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2000). urge en banc reconsideration followed by re- Irrespective of whether particular judges like versal. Appropriately, the majority relied in it, however, the Supreme Court has been giv- part on the fact that the constitutionality of the ing more and more Eleventh Amendment pro- EPA has been upheld by five other circuits1 tection to the states. The panel majority opin- and in Ussery v. Louisiana, 150 F.3d 431 (5th ion takes no account of that trend. Cir. 1998). It is significant, however, that af- ter deciding Kimel, the Court vacated and re- The majority decision is inconsistent with manded two circuits’ opinions upholding the the Supreme Court’s Eleventh Amendment EPA.2 The Court has not yet granted jurisprudence in two significant respects. certiorari in any of the cases upholding the First, as Judge DeMoss’s dissent ably demonstrates, there is no indication that, when 1 it enacted the EPA, Congress sought to invoke See Varner v. Ill. State Univ., 226 F.3d 927 its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth (7th Cir. 2000) (“Varner II”), cert. denied, 533 Amendment. See Siler-Khoder, 261 F.3d at U.S. 902 (2001); Kovacevich v. Kent State Univ., 551-58 (DeMoss, J., dissenting in part, 224 F.3d 806, 819-21 (6th Cir. 2000); Hundert- concurring in part). Because Congress almost mark v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 205 F.3d 1272, certainly relied solely on its powers under the 1274 (11th Cir. 2000); O’Sullivan v. Minnesota, Commerce Clause, the EPA cannot pierce the 191 F.3d 965, 968 (8th Cir. 1999); Anderson v. State Univ., 169 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 1999), vacated states’ sovereign immunity. and remanded, 528 U.S. 1111 (2000). Second, even if Congress did properly 2 See Anderson v. State Univ., 169 F.3d 117 invoke its section 5 powers, the EPA fails the (2d Cir. 1999), vacated and remanded, 528 U.S. “congruence and proportionality” test, which 1111 (2000); Varner v. Ill. State Univ., 150 F.3d requires that section 5 legislation not be “so 706 (7th Cir. 1998) (“Varner I”), vacated and remanded, 528 U.S. 1110 (2000). 2 EPA since Kimel, but it seems likely that it must be at least some significant indicationSSin does not regard the issue as settled and is only the text, structure, or legislative historySSthat awaiting the emergence of a circuit split. Also, it sought to use its section 5 powers. importantly, the Court has rejected only one Congress cannot rely on section 5 without any relevant certiorari petition since Kimel.3 indication that it intended to do so. II. Very recently, the Court specifically refused A. to consider section 5 as a justification for the In enacting the EPA, Congress failed to in- constitutionality of a statute where “[t]here is voke its powers under section 5. “Because no suggestion in the language of the statute such legislation imposes congressional policy itself, or in the House or Senate Reports of the on a state involuntarily, and because it often bill which became the statute that Congress intrudes on traditional state authority, we had in mind” its Fourteenth Amendment should not quickly attribute to Congress an powers. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. unstated intent to act under its authority to en- Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. force the Fourteenth Amendment.” Pennhurst 627, 642 n.7 (1999).5 Even in EEOC v. State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 243 n.18 (1983), a 16 (1981). An intent to invoke section 5 pow- decision heavily relied on by the plaintiff and ers cannot be attributed to an act that by the United States as intervenor, the Court “nowhere states that is its purpose” and where noted that “[i]t is in the nature of our review such a purpose is not evident from the of congressional legislation defended on the legislation’s “language and structure” or basis of Congress’s powers under Section 5 of legislative history. Id. at 17. For the reasons the Fourteenth Amendment that we be able to well laid out in Judge DeMoss’s dissent, there discern some legislative purpose or factual is no indication that Congress sought to use its predicate that supports the exercise of that section 5 powersSSand there is a great deal of power.” evidence that it sought to use its powers under the Commerce ClauseSSwhen it enacted the Although Supreme Court precedent may be 1974 amendments to the EPA extending it to equivocal as to how much indication of cover the states. Siler-Khodr, 261 F.3d at congressional intent is necessary to invoke sec- 551-55 (DeMoss, J., dissenting). tion 5 properly, there is little doubt after Florida Prepaid that at least some such Although the plaintiff may be right in sup- indication is required. The EPA does not meet posing that Congress need not explicitly in- even this minimal standard. voke section 5 in the text of the statute,4 there 3 4 See Varner II. (...continued) protection’”). 4 See EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 243 5 n.18 (1983) (holding that to invoke its § 5 powers, See also Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, 204 Congress need not “anywhere recite the words F.3d 601, 604 (5th Cir. 2000) (acknowledging that ‘section 5’' or ‘Fourteenth Amendment’ or ‘equal Florida Prepaid has clarified Supreme Court (continued...) precedent on this point). 3 B. Raygor does not resolve the question of The panel majority did not have the benefit how strong an indication of congressional in- of Raygor v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., tent is required; but it certainly holds that at 122 S. Ct. 999 (2002), when it issued its least some is necessary. Because the opinion. This new decision is further regulation of state employees by the Equal Pay indication of the Supreme Court’s increasing Act undeniably “intrude[s] on state gov- receptiveness to Eleventh Amendment ernmental functions” and “alter[s] the usual arguments and reinforces my concerns about balance between the States and the Federal the panel majority’s result and reasoning. Government,” Raygor strongly suggests that Raygor holds, in an Eleventh Amendment sov- there must be at least minimal indication that ereign immunity case, that “insofar as statutory Congress sought to invoke its powers under intent was ambiguous, we [will] not ‘attribute section 5. Id. at 1006, 1007. to Congress an intent to intrude on state governmental functions regardless of whether III. Congress acted pursuant . . . to § 5 of the Even if Congress did properly invoke its Fourteenth Amendment.’” Id. at 1007 powers under section 5, the EPA fails the test (quoting Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, of congruence and proportionality. “Congress 470 (1991)) (emphasis added). In such cases, can enact broad prophylactic legislation that “it is not relevant whether Congress acted prohibits conduct that is constitutional only pursuant to § 5.” Id. at 1007-08. when there is a ‘congruence and propor- tionality between the injury to be remedied and The specific context of Raygor was the means adopted to that end.’” Kazmier v. statutory ambiguity over whether Congress Widmann, 225 F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 2000) had intended to abrogate state sovereign (quoting Kimel, 528 U.S. at 86). A statute immunity at all. The Court’s reasoning, cannot be justified under section 5 if it however, is also applicable to the question “prohibits substantially more state employment whether Congress sought to invoke section 5. decisions and practices” than are themselves This conclusion is required by Raygor’s unconstitutional. Kimel, 528 U.S. at 86; see emphatic statement that “[w]hen Congress also Kazmier, 225 F.3d at 524 (same). intends to alter the usual balance between the States and the Federal Government, it must If the EPA is to be justified at all under make its intention to so unmistakably clear in section 5, it must be as a remedial measure the language of the statute” to ensure that “the aimed at eradicating unconstitutional sex dis- legislature has in fact faced, and intended to crimination. It is well established that the bring into issue, the critical matters involved in Equal Prot ection Clause forbids only the judicial decision” of an important question intentional sex discrimination. Personnel of constitutional law. Id. at 1006 (citations Adm’r v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979). omitted). Obviously, we cannot ensure that Moreover, unconstitutional “[d]iscriminatory Congress faced the critical issue of the scope purpose . . . implies more than intent as voli- of its section 5 powers in the process of tion or intent as awareness of consequences . enacting the EPA if there is no indication that . . . It implies that the decisionmaker . . . it sought to invoke those powers at all. selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely 4 ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects on an allow the defendant to justify the challenged identifiable group.” Id. at 279 (quotation earnings disparity if it is a result of “(1) a omitted). seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or Unfortunately, the EPA goes far beyond quality of production; (4) any other factor forbidding intentional sex discrimination. One other than sex.” Fallon, 882 F.2d at 1211 circuit has described it as a “strict liability” (citing 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (1994)). statute under which “no intent to discriminate Although these four categories (and need be shown.” Fallon v. Illinois, 882 F.2d particularly the catch-all last one) seem 1206, 1213 (7th Cir. 1989). “Unlike the comprehensive, there are likely to be many showing required under Title VII’s disparate cases in which none of them applies even in treatment theory, proof of discriminatory the absence of intentional, unconstitutional sex intent is not required to establish a prima facie discrimination. case under the Equal Pay Act.” Peters v. City of Shreveport, 818 F.2d 1148, 1153 (5th Cir. There may be numerous instances in which 1987).6 Thus, there is a strong likelihood that an employment decision was made as a result the EPA “prohibits substantially more state of difficult-to-articulate intuitive factors that employment decisions and practices than cannot be affirmatively proven by evidence would likely be held unconstitutional under the strong enough to refute a prima facie case un- applicable equal protection . . . standard.” der the EPA. In practice, the reasoning Kimel, 528 U.S. at 86. underlying an employment decision may be difficult or impossible to document at trial. The four affirmative defenses to a prima Moreover, even where sex was the deter- facie case available under the EPA do not mining factor in a part icular decision, it may eliminate the danger that it can be used to pro- not have been the result of “a . . . course of hibit an excessively large amount of action [adopted] at least in part ‘because of,’ constitutional conduct. Once the plaintiff not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects on” establishes a prima facie case, these defenses women. Feeney, 442 U.S. at 279. State agencies may adopt pay scales that 6 In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., have the effect of paying women less than men Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), the Court relaxed some- without doing so “because of” their “adverse what the standards for disparate treatment liability effects” on women. Id. (emphasis added). under title VII, but it explicitly reaffirmed the The requirement that the defendant state fundamental principle that “[t]he ultimate burden affirmatively prove not only its lack of a dis- of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant criminatory intent but also the existence of a intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff valid alternative ground for its decision remains at all times with the plaintiff.” Id. at 143 (internal citations omitted). Thus, a decision ensures that a substantial amount of striking down the EPA as applied to the states does constitutional state action will run afoul of the not imply that the application of title VII to state EPA. employers is constitutionally suspect. See Fitzpatrick v. Blitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976) (up- Previous Supreme Court cases upholding a holding the constitutionality of the 1972 amend- burden-shifting provision under section 5 have ments to title VII that extend it to state employers). 5 done so only in cases in which the governmental entity had a long history of intentional discrimination, or where the specific challenged policy had a history of abuse as a pretext for discrimination.7 By contrast, the EPA does not require any proof that the defendant has a history of intentional discrimination, nor does it limit its scope to employment practices that routinely have served as tools of intentional discrimination. It therefore falls short of the congruence and proportionality requirement the Supreme Court has imposed on section 5 legislation. Our Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence in this area needs to be squared with recent and emerging Supreme Court law. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. 7 See, e.g., City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 533 (surveying and summarizing these cases); City of Rome v. U.S., 446 U.S. 156, 177 (1980) (upholding preclearance requirements imposed by the Voting Rights Act because they are limited to jurisdictions with a “demonstrable history of intentional racial discrimination”); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 330 (1966) (upholding Voting Rights Act ban on voting tests “because of their long history as a tool for per- petrating evil”). 6