Opinions of the United
1995 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-23-1995
Christy v PA Turnpike
Precedential or Non-Precedential:
Docket 94-1386
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995
Recommended Citation
"Christy v PA Turnpike" (1995). 1995 Decisions. Paper 140.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995/140
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1995 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 94-1386 and 94-1398
___________
CHARLES A. CHRISTY,
vs.
PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION, A DULY
ORGANIZED AND EXISTING AGENCY OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; ROBERT BRADY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JAMES J. DODARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; HOWARD YERUSALIM,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
FRANK S. URSOMARSO, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JAMES F. MALONE, III,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JOHN L. SOKOL, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; S. MICHAEL PALERMO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JOSEPH L. DIRIENZO, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; SAMUEL S. CARNABUCI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
MELVIN M. SHELTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DEBORAH KOVAL,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JOHN A. BOSCHI, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; VINCENT J. GRECO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JOHN A. STEWART, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; GEORGE PILECKI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
SEAN PILECKI, INDIVIDUALLY
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Robert
Brady, Vincent Greco and John Stewart
Appellants No. 94-1386
John A. Boschi,
Appellant No. 94-1398
___________
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 93-cv-03346)
___________
ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 1994
OPINION VACATED APRIL 27, 1995
SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO LAR 34.1(a)
ON PANEL REHEARING APRIL 28, 1995
BEFORE: STAPLETON, ALITO and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed May 23, 1995)
___________
Michael M. Baylson (ARGUED)
Duane, Morris & Heckscher
4200 One Liberty Place
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396
Attorney for Appellants, Pennsylvania
Turnpike Commission, Robert Brady, Vincent
Greco and John Stewart
David S. Fortney (ARGUED)
Lisa G. DiPietro
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay
1650 Market Street
2500 One Liberty Place
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
Attorneys for Appellant, John A. Boschi
Joseph F. Lawless, Jr. (ARGUED)
6 Harvey Lane
Newtown Square, PA 19073
John P. Hickey
Imogene E. Hughes
Kleinbard, Bell & Brecker
1900 Market Street
Suite 700
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorneys for Appellee
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
LEWIS, Circuit Judge.
In this case, we must determine whether the
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission ("Commission") is an "arm" or
"alter ego" of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and thus entitled
to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.
Because we conclude that the Commission is not an arm or alter
ego of Pennsylvania we will affirm the district court's finding
that the Commission does not enjoy Eleventh Amendment sovereign
immunity.
I.
The appellee, Charles Christy ("Christy"), has been an
employee of the Commission since 1976.1 In November of 1992,
Christy made application for the position of Paint Crew Foreman.
He was interviewed for this position in early 1993 by the
appellants John Boschi, Vincent Greco and John Stewart.2 Christy
was then chosen as one of three final candidates for the Paint
Crew Foreman position. The names of the three final candidates
were passed to the Commission's personnel committee for final
1
. Since 1983, Christy has been employed as an Auto
Mechanic 1.
2
. John Boschi is currently the Commission's Deputy Executive
Director of Maintenance; Vincent Greco is Eastern Division
Superintendent of the Commission; and John Stewart is Assistant
Deputy Executive Director of Maintenance for the Commission. The
other individual defendant in this appeal, Robert Brady, is a
Turnpike Commissioner.
review. The personnel committee then recommended that the
position be awarded to one Sean Pilecki, a Commission employee
during the preceding four and a half years. The Commission
adopted the personnel committee's recommendation and hired Mr.
Pilecki. Christy subsequently applied and was turned down for
the position of Eastern Division Equipment Supervisor.
Christy then sued the Commission and its individual
commissioners and personnel committee members pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, claiming that he was not promoted due
to political bias against him. In response to Christy's claims
of political bias, the Commission and individual defendants
Brady, Greco and Stewart filed a joint motion for summary
judgment, while the defendant Boschi filed a separate summary
judgment motion. The district court denied the defendants'
motions, ruling as a matter of law that the Commission was not
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and rejecting the
individual defendants' claims of qualified immunity. These
appeals followed.
II.
The district court had jurisdiction in this case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(a)(3) and 1367(a).3 We have
3
. The Commission argues that the district court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over it because Christy had elected
to drop the Commission as a party by the time the district court
ruled on the Eleventh Amendment issue. Putting aside the
question whether or not Christy in fact effectively dropped the
Commission as a party, the Commission is incorrect in asserting
that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
it at the time the court ruled on the Eleventh Amendment issue.
Christy sued the individual defendants in both their individual
and official capacities. A suit against an individual in his or
appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over the
district court's denial of the defendants' motions for summary
judgment on Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity grounds.
See Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.,
___ U.S. ___, ___, 113 S. Ct. 684, 687-89 (1993) (Eleventh
Amendment immunity); footnote 4, infra (qualified immunity). We
exercise plenary review of the district court's denial of the
defendants' motions for summary judgment. Rappa v. New Castle
County, 18 F.3d 1043, 1050 (3d Cir. 1994).4
(..continued)
her official capacity is no different from a suit against that
individual's office. "As such, it is no different from a suit
against" the office itself. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (citations omitted); see also
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (emphasizing that
official capacity suits "`generally represent only another way of
pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an
agent.'" (citation omitted)). In this case, a suit against the
individual defendants in their official capacities is the same as
a suit against the Commission. The individual defendants have
asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity in relation to Christy's
official capacity claims, and pressed that immunity in their
summary judgment motions before the district court. Thus, the
issue of the Commission's entitlement to sovereign immunity was
properly before the district court at the time the court ruled on
the issue.
4
. The individual defendants argue that the district court
erred in denying their motions for summary judgment based on
qualified immunity. The plaintiff contends that we lack
jurisdiction to entertain this argument because the district
court's decision was based on factual rather than legal grounds.
We do not agree. We will not address this question at length,
however, because it appears likely that the Supreme Court will
soon resolve this question in Johnson v. Jones, No. 94-455
(Argued April 18, 1995).
While we believe that we have jurisdiction to entertain the
individual defendants' qualified immunity argument, we affirm the
district court's decision on the merits. When the disputed facts
are viewed in the light most favorable to Christy, as they must
III.
We must determine whether the district court correctly
concluded that the Commission is not an "arm" of Pennsylvania and
therefore not entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment.5 The question whether the Commission is an "arm" of
the State is one of federal law. Blake v. Kline, 612 F.2d 718,
722 (3d Cir. 1979). However, before undertaking our Eleventh
Amendment analysis, we must decide a question of apparent first
impression in this Circuit: who bears the burden of production
and persuasion with respect to factual questions when a putative
state entity claims immunity under the Eleventh Amendment? We
conclude that the party asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity
(and standing to benefit from its acceptance) bears the burden of
proving its applicability. In so concluding, we adopt the
reasoning set forth by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
in ITSI TV Productions v. Agricultural Associations, 3 F.3d 1289
(9th Cir. 1993). Because Eleventh Amendment immunity can be
expressly waived by a party, or forfeited through non-assertion,
it does not implicate federal subject matter jurisdiction in the
(..continued)
at summary judgment, we agree that the individual defendants were
not entitled to qualified immunity.
5
. The Eleventh Amendment provides that "[t]he 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 . . . ." U.S. Const.
amend. XI. Its explicit terms notwithstanding, the Eleventh
Amendment has consistently been interpreted to immunize an
unconsenting state "`from suits brought in federal courts by her
own citizens as well as by citizens of another state.'"
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100
(1984) (citation omitted).
ordinary sense. Id. at 1291. We agree with the Ninth Circuit
that "whatever its jurisdictional attributes, [Eleventh Amendment
immunity] should be treated as an affirmative defense[,]" and
"[l]ike any other such defense, that which is promised by the
Eleventh Amendment must be proved by the party that asserts it
and would benefit from its acceptance." Id. We also agree with
the Ninth Circuit that considerations of fairness support this
conclusion. As the court noted in ITSI TV Productions:
In general, a claim of Eleventh Amendment
immunity will occasion serious dispute only
where a relatively complex institutional
arrangement makes it unclear whether a given
entity ought to be treated as an arm of the
state. In such cases, the "true facts" as to
the particulars of this arrangement will
presumably "lie particularly within the
knowledge of" the party claiming immunity.
Id. at 1292 (citations omitted).
Having concluded that the party asserting Eleventh
Amendment immunity bears the burden of proving entitlement to it,
we turn now to the merits of the immunity question. We have on
numerous occasions set forth the criteria to be considered in
determining whether an entity is an "alter ego" or "arm" of a
state for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. See e.g., Peters
v. Delaware River Port Authority, 16 F.3d 1346, 1350 (3d Cir.
1994); Bolden v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 953
F.2d 807, 816-818 (3d Cir. 1991) (in banc); Fitchik v. New Jersey
Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 873 F.2d 655, 659 (3d Cir. 1989)
(in banc). Our oft-reiterated test entails three distinct
inquiries: (1) whether, in the event the plaintiff prevails, the
payment of the judgment would come from the state (this includes
three considerations: whether the payment will come from the
state's treasury, whether the agency has sufficient funds to
satisfy the judgment, and whether the sovereign has immunized
itself from responsibility for the agency's debts); (2) the
status of the agency under state law (this includes four
considerations: how state law treats the agency generally,
whether the agency is separately incorporated, whether the agency
can sue and be sued in its own right, and whether it is immune
from state taxation); and (3) what degree of autonomy the agency
enjoys. Peters v. Del. River Port Authority, 16 F.3d 1346, 1350
(3d Cir. 1994) (citing Bolden v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth.,
953 F.2d 807, 816 (3d Cir. 1991) (in banc)). We turn now to this
three-pronged inquiry.
A. Funding
We have explained that although no single factor is
dispositive of the Eleventh Amendment inquiry, the "most
important" factor is whether a judgment against the entity in
question, in this case the Commission, would be paid out of the
state treasury. See, e.g., Fitchik v. New Jersey Transit Rail
Operations, Inc., 873 F.2d 655, 659 (3d Cir. 1989) (in banc).
The special emphasis we place upon the funding factor is
supported by the Eleventh Amendment's central goal: the
prevention of federal court judgments that must be paid out of
the State's treasury. See Fitchik, 873 F.2d at 659-60 (citing
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974)). The Supreme Court has
recently reiterated the significance accorded this factor in
relation to other Eleventh Amendment considerations. In Hess v.
Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 115 S. Ct. 394 (1994),
the Court explained that "prevention of federal court judgments
that must be paid out of a State's treasury" formed the "impetus"
for the Eleventh Amendment. Hess, 115 S. Ct. at 404.
Accordingly, Courts of Appeals have
recognized the vulnerability of the State's
purse as the most salient factor in Eleventh
Amendment determinations . . . . "[T]he vast
majority of Circuits have concluded that the
state treasury factor is the most important
factor to be considered and, in practice,
have generally accorded this factor
dispositive weight."
Id. (citations omitted).
1. Whether Payment Will Come from the State's Treasury
Pursuant to the Turnpike Organization, Extension and
Toll Road Conversion Act ("The Act"), 36 P.S. §§ 651.1 et. seq.,
the Commission is authorized to obtain funds through the
collection of tolls for the use of the Pennsylvania Turnpike
System. 36 P.S. § 651.16. The Commission is also authorized to
collect rents and charges for telephone and electric lines, gas
stations, garages, stores, hotels, restaurants and advertising
signs. Id. The Act also authorizes the Commission to obtain
funds through the issuance of bonds, notes and other obligations.
Id. at § 651.12. In addition, the Act authorizes the Commission
to obtain funds from the federal government. Id. at § 651.19.
Finally, the Commission receives some funding out of
Pennsylvania's oil company franchise tax collections. 75
Pa.C.S.A. § 9511(h).
The Commission notes that only one of these funding
sources -- tolls -- is not subject to state control. According
to the Commission, the state's regulation and control of the
Commission's funding is crucial to our analysis of the funding
factor. Also significant, according to the Commission, is the
fact that upon retiring its debts, or setting aside funds
sufficient to do so, the Commission is to be dissolved and all of
the Commission's property is to be vested in the Department of
Highways. See 36 P.S. § 652o.
We do not know what percentage of the Commission's
funding might be attributed to each of the funding sources
identified above. We are, of course, able to observe that only
one of the five available sources of funding -- the oil company
franchise tax -- is obtained from the state. The other four
sources -- tolls, rents, bond and note revenues, and federal
funding -- are not state-derived. That four of the five
established sources of the Commission's funding are not state-
derived is, we think, even in the absence of additional
information, some support for the conclusion that the Commission
is not the alter ego of Pennsylvania.6
6
. Although the figure does not appear in the record, the
Commission has represented to us that it has received "more than
$112,000,000" in oil company franchise tax revenues. (Commission
brief at 36 n.18). We fail to see, however, how we can draw any
conclusion from this representation, given that the Commission
has failed to provide information regarding the percentage of its
annual revenues received in this form. See Bolden, 953 F.2d at
819-20 (without knowing what percentage of SEPTA's total revenue
comes from state funds under a particular new law, we held that
the impact of the law on SEPTA's funding was too uncertain to be
given significant weight in the funding analysis).
The degree of state regulation of the Commission's
funding does not alter our conclusion that the funding factor
weighs against according immunity to the Commission. We have
explained that state control is only significant to the funding
analysis where such control indicates state ownership of the
funds. Fitchik, 873 F.2d at 661. In other words, state control
over an entity's ability to obtain funds is inadequate to
demonstrate state ownership of the funds where the state is not
shown to have a financial interest that would be directly and
adversely affected by the diminution of the funds in question.
See id. Otherwise, the degree of state control over the entity's
funding is relevant to the autonomy inquiry, which we discuss
below. Id. Here, the state's control over the Commission's
authority to issue bonds, notes and other obligations falls short
of indicating state ownership of the funds obtained through the
issuance of such bonds, notes and other obligations. Likewise,
state control over the Commission's ability to obtain federal
funding falls short of indicating state ownership of the federal
funds obtained. The Commission's evidence of state control over
its ability to obtain funds simply fails to show a financial
interest on the part of Pennsylvania that would be directly and
adversely affected by the diminution of the Commission's funds
obtained through the issuance of bonds or from the federal
government.
Nor is our conclusion with respect to the funding
factor altered by the fact that the Commission will one day be
dissolved and all its remaining funds and property vest in the
Department of Highways. Pursuant to 36 P.S. § 652o:
When all bonds and the interest thereon
shall have been paid or a sufficient amount
for the payment of all bonds and the interest
to maturity thereon, shall have been set
aside in trust for the benefit of the
bondholders, and shall continue to be held
for that purpose, the turnpike and the
connecting tunnels and bridges shall become a
part of the system of State highways, and
shall be maintained by the Department of
Highways free of tolls, and thereupon the
commission shall be dissolved, and all funds
of the commission not required for the
payment of the bonds and all machinery,
equipment and other property belonging to the
commission, shall be vested in the Department
of Highways.
36. P.S. § 652o. Thus, the dissolution of the Commission is
statutorily contingent upon the Commission satisfying, or being
able to satisfy, all of its debts and obligations. If anything,
this provision provides further support for our conclusion by
illustrating the state's reluctance to take on the Commission's
financial obligations as its own.
2. Whether the Commission Could Satisfy a Judgment Against It
We do not know how much money the Commission has or
would have available to it to satisfy a potential judgment
against it. According to the Commission, the lack of record
evidence on this point renders this second funding inquiry
"irrelevant." We do not agree. Since the Commission bears the
burden of proving its entitlement to Eleventh Amendment immunity,
the Commission's failure to provide pertinent information
regarding its ability, or lack thereof, to satisfy a potential
judgment against it simply means that the Commission has failed
to sustain its burden of proof on this important question.
Moreover, even in the absence of such evidence, our cases enable
us to draw certain conclusions, with respect to the Commission's
ability to pay a judgment against it. In both Bolden and
Fitchik, we suggested that an entity with power to raise revenues
by raising fares need not request funds from the state to meet
shortfalls caused by adverse judgments. See Bolden, 953 F.2d at
819; Fitchik, 873 F.2d at 661.7 The Commission is authorized "to
fix, and to revise, from time to time," tolls for the use of the
Pennsylvania Turnpike System. 36 P.S. § 651.16(a). In fact, the
Commission's authority to set the toll rate "shall not be subject
to supervision or regulation by any other State commission,
board, bureau or agency." Id. at § 651.16(b). In light of
Bolden and Fitchik, we think the Commission's power to raise
revenue levels by increasing the toll rates, even in the absence
of information regarding the Commission's financial condition and
consequent ability to pay a judgment against it, supports the
view that the Commission need not seek assistance from the state
to satisfy a judgment against it.
3. Whether the Sovereign has Immunized Itself
The Act provides that "[a]ll compensation and salaries
and all expenses incurred in carrying out the provisions of this
7
. We also noted in Fitchik, alternatively, that the entity
could cover a shortfall by reducing its expenses or capital
budget. Fitchik, 873 F.2d at 661. Similarly, the Commission
would, we imagine, be able to cover a shortfall by reducing its
expenses or capital budget.
act shall be paid solely from funds provided under the authority
of this act . . . ." 36 P.S. § 651.8(a). Furthermore, the Act
provides that all bonds, notes and other obligations issued by
the Commission under the Act
shall not be deemed to be a debt of the
Commonwealth or a pledge of the faith and
credit of the Commonwealth, but such bonds,
notes or other obligations shall be payable
solely from the revenues of the commission
. . . . All such bonds, notes or other
obligations shall contain a statement on
their face that the Commonwealth is not
obligated to pay the same or the interest
thereon except from revenues of the
commission . . . and that the faith and
credit of the Commonwealth is not pledged to
the payment of the principal or interest of
such bonds, notes or other obligations. The
issuance of turnpike revenue bonds, notes or
other obligations under the provisions of
this act shall not directly or indirectly or
contingently obligate the Commonwealth to
levy or to pledge any form of taxation
whatever therefor or to make any
appropriation for their payment.
36 P.S. § 651.4.
The Commission observes that the General Assembly of
Pennsylvania has not expressly immunized the state from
responsibility for all of the Commission's possible debts and
liabilities. Nowhere in the Commission's original or subsequent
enabling acts, the Commission notes, is there a provision
disclaiming Pennsylvania's responsibility for the Commission's
unassumed liabilities and obligations. One can imagine, the
Commission suggests, numerous situations in which the Commission
would face unassumed liabilities or debts large enough to exhaust
the Commission's funds and necessitate the Commission's rescue by
the Commonwealth.
In light of our case law, we do not agree that the
absence of a blanket disclaimer is significant. What is
significant under our case law is the fact that the Commission
has failed to establish that Pennsylvania is under any
affirmative obligation to pay the Commission's unassumed
liabilities in the first place. See Bolden, 953 F.2d at 819 ("A
state legislature might feel compelled as a practical matter to
subsidize a variety of entities that provide necessary services,
including financially pressed municipalities. Such discretionary
subsidies committed in reaction to a judgment, however, would not
necessarily transform the recipients into alter egos of the
state."). Although the Commonwealth might well choose to
appropriate money to the Commission to enable it to meet a
shortfall caused by an adverse judgment, such voluntary payments
by a state simply "`do not trigger [Eleventh Amendment]
immunity.'" Id. (quoting Fitchik, 873 F.2d at 661).8
8
. Christy contends that the Commission is able to self-insure
and to purchase liability insurance, and that the Commission in
fact self-insures at least part of its contingent liabilities
under the Commonwealth's Employee Liability Self-Insurance
Program. We have in cases past considered an entity's ability to
obtain insurance as evidence of that entity's financial self-
sufficiency and independence from the state. See Bolden, 953
F.2d at 819; Fitchik, 873 F.2d at 661. The Commission counters
that the alleged fact of the Commission's self-insurance is not
in evidence noting that "[n]o record reference is offered [by
Christy], nor does any affidavit, deposition excerpt, or document
included in the record support this statement." (Commission
reply at 19 n.14). But the Commission overlooks the fact that it
bears the burden of proving entitlement to Eleventh Amendment
immunity; its failure to provide evidence of an inability to
The Commission has failed to establish that (1) a
judgment against it would be tantamount to a judgment against the
Treasury of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (2) the Commission
lacks financial resources sufficient to pay a potential judgment
against it; or (3) Pennsylvania would be under any obligation to
cover any such potential judgment against the Commission.
Accordingly, on the record as it stands before us, the funding
factor, the most important of the three, weighs heavily in
support of the conclusion that the Commission is not an arm of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and does not enjoy Eleventh
Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.
B. Status at State Law
The second general factor we must consider in
determining whether the Commission is an arm or alter ego of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is the status of the Commission
under Pennsylvania law. Our purpose here is to determine whether
Pennsylvania law treats the Commission as an independent entity,
or as a surrogate for the state. See Fitchik, 873 F.2d at 662.
In Specter v. Commonwealth, 341 A.2d 481 (1975), a
plurality of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the
Commission is not an arm of the Commonwealth and not entitled to
sovereign immunity. After examining the legislative acts
creating the Commission and defining its purposes and powers, as
(..continued)
obtain insurance is our primary concern, not Christy's failure to
cite record evidence to the contrary.
well as judicial decisions in which the Commission's status was
at issue, the court explained that:
There is, of course, no doubt that the
Commonwealth itself could have constructed
the Turnpike in the same manner that it
constructs and operates its State highways.
Had it done so, the State's immunity from
suit would encompass actions arising in
connection with the Turnpike. But the
Commonwealth itself did not build this
highway and does not maintain it. The
legislature created this separate body and at
the same time disclaimed any responsibility
on the part of the Commonwealth for
liabilities which it, the Commission, might
incur. It is clear that the Commission is
not an integral part of the Commonwealth, and
cannot share the attributes of sovereignty
which inhere in the state. It follows that
the Commission is not immune from suit in
tort for the acts of its servants and agents
acting in the course of their employment or
agency.
Id. at 491 (emphasis in original).
The Commission does, we recognize, possess certain
attributes associated with sovereignty. For example, the
Commission (1) may exercise the power of eminent domain; see 36
P.S. §§ 651.9 - .11; (2) enjoys statutory immunity from suit in
state court; see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8522(a); and (3) is exempt from
all state property taxation; see 36 P.S. § 651.15. On the other
hand, the Commission possesses certain traits not at all
characteristic of an arm of the state; for example, the
Commission may sue and be sued in its own name; see 36 P.S.
§ 651.7(a)(3); and has the power to enter into contracts in its
own name; see 36 P.S. § 651.7(a)(2).
On balance, the "status under state law" factors weigh
slightly in favor of the conclusion that the Commission is not an
arm of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This is true,
especially in light of the plurality holding of the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court in Specter that the Commission is not an integral
part of the Commonwealth, and thus cannot share the attributes of
sovereignty which inhere in the state. Cf. Peters, 16 F.3d at
1351 (holding that the Delaware River Port Authority's status
under state law weighs in favor of the conclusion that the agency
does not enjoy sovereign immunity, especially in light of a
Pennsylvania Supreme Court case holding that the DRPA is not "`an
integral part of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania'" (citation
omitted)).
The Commission contends that in enacting Pennsylvania's
sovereign immunity statute, see 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 8501 et seq., the
Pennsylvania legislature "conclusively repudiated" Specter's
conclusion that the Commission is separate and apart from the
Commonwealth. The Commission further notes that in two
unanimous, post-Specter, decisions, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth
Court confirmed that the Commission enjoys sovereign immunity.
See Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Jellig, 563 A.2d 202
(Pa.Cmwlth. 1989); Bradley v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission,
550 A.2d 261 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1988). To accord Specter any deference,
the Commission argues, is to give Specter value already taken
away by the Pennsylvania legislature and judiciary.
We do not share the Commission's appraisal of Specter's
continued vitality. Passage of the Pennsylvania sovereign
immunity statute has not diminished the significance of Specter's
analysis to our assessment of the Commission's claim of
entitlement to Eleventh Amendment immunity. By enacting an
immunity statute pursuant to which the Commission is accorded
sovereign immunity, the Pennsylvania legislature did not
"conclusively repudiate" Specter's conclusion that the Commission
is not an integral part of the Commonwealth and does not share
the attributes of sovereignty inhering in the state. In enacting
the sovereign immunity statute, the Pennsylvania legislature
merely conferred upon entities such as the Commission by way of
statute that which they otherwise lacked, namely, immunity from
suit in state court. We implied as much in Toombs v. Manning,
835 F.2d 453 (3d Cir. 1987), in which we explained that
[t]he significance to our analysis of the
legislature's inclusion of the . . .
Commission as an immune agency is that it is
clear that the General Assembly intended to
provide sovereign immunity protection not
only for those entities which before Mayle[
v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 388
A.2d 709 (1978) (in which the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court abrogated sovereign immunity)]
had been immune as sovereigns, but also for
those entities not previously immune, but
which now came within the statute's scope.
Toombs, 835 F.2d at 459 (footnote omitted) (emphasis supplied).
Nor do Jellig and Bradley undermine the continuing validity of
Specter's analysis. In those cases, the Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Court merely applied the Pennsylvania sovereign
immunity statute to find, unremarkably, that the Commission
enjoys sovereign immunity from suit in state court. See Jellig,
563 A.2d at 205; Bradley, 550 A.2d at 263.9
C. Autonomy
The Commission's membership is controlled by the
executive and legislative branches of the Commonwealth. One
member of the five-person Commission must always be the Secretary
of Transportation, a cabinet-level position appointed by the
Governor and confirmed by the Pennsylvania Senate. See 36 P.S.
§§ 651.5(d), 652d; see also 71 P.S. § 67.1(d)(1) (Gubernatorial
appointment and senatorial confirmation of Secretary of
Transportation). The four remaining Commission members are also
appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. See 36
P.S. §§ 651.5(b), 652d; see also 71 P.S. § 67.1(c)(2)
9
. We recognize that the Pennsylvania sovereign immunity
statute itself is some evidence of the Commission's status before
the law of Pennsylvania. And as some evidence of the
Commission's status at state law, it is relevant to our Eleventh
Amendment inquiry. However, it is far from determinative of that
inquiry. We have explained that state law extending sovereign
immunity to an agency is "relevant to the Eleventh Amendment
determination, but it is not dispositive." Bolden, 953 F.2d at
815 n.8 (citations omitted).
Thus, a state law determination of sovereign
immunity may coincide with and influence the
federal law determination of Eleventh
Amendment status, but the former does not
conclusively determine the latter . . . .
[Otherwise], each state legislature
apparently could confer Eleventh Amendment
protection on any entity it wished, including
counties and cities, by enacting a statute
clothing these entities with "sovereign
immunity" from suit on state claims.
Id. at 815 n.8, 817.
(Gubernatorial appointment and senatorial confirmation of
Commission members). State authority over the appointment of
Commission members lends obvious support to a finding of
sovereignty. See Peters, 16 F.3d at 1351-52.
On the other hand, weighing in favor of a finding of
autonomy are the facts that the Commission may fix and revise
tolls; enter contracts in its own name; issue bonds and notes;
sue in its own name; purchase and own property; and promulgate
rules and regulations for its own governance. See 36 P.S.
§ 651.16 (fix and revise tolls); 36 P.S. § 651.7 (enter
contracts, sue in its own name, purchase and own property, and
promulgate rules and regulations for its own governance); 36 P.S.
§ 651.12 (issue bonds and notes). Of course, several of these
powers are subject to a degree of state control. For example,
the Pennsylvania Attorney General must review the form and
legality of each contract and rule or regulation the Commission
proposes. See 71 P.S. § 732-204(b) (review of rules and
regulations); 71 P.S. § 732-204(f) (review of contracts).
Moreover, Commission issuance of bonds and notes is subject to
state approval. See 36 P.S. § 652u.1
On balance, the significant control the Commonwealth
exercises through the power to appoint all the members of the
Commission weighs slightly in favor of Commission immunity from
suit. Cf. Peters, 16 F.3d at 1351-52 (where separately
incorporated agency was found to have power to enter contracts,
hold property, and set and collect tolls, we held that the
autonomy factor weighed "slightly" in favor of affording immunity
in light of the states' power to appoint the members of the board
of the agency in question).
D. The Totality of Factors
Having considered each of the three factors above, we
now must consider the three factors in their totality. See
Bolden, 953 F.2d at 821. Since the most important factor,
funding, weighs heavily against the Commission and only one
factor weighs, even slightly, in favor of the Commission, the
balance is clearly struck against a finding that the Commission
enjoys sovereign immunity as an arm of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Consequently, we find that the Commission is
subject to suit in federal court. We will affirm the district
court's conclusion to this effect.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we will affirm the
district court's denial of the defendants' motions for summary
judgment on Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity grounds.
________________________
Christy v. PA Turnpike
Combined Opinion