Kostic v. Texas A&M University at Commerce
No. 3:19-CV-2865 (N.D. Tex.)
Holding
A university employee's due process and First Amendment claims were dismissed where she failed to allege facts sufficient to overcome the university's Eleventh Amendment immunity and failed to identify a final policymaker for Monell liability purposes.
What This Case Is About
A university employee sued Texas A&M University at Commerce and individual university officials, alleging she was retaliated against for exercising her First Amendment rights and terminated without adequate due process. The court dismissed most claims, finding that the Eleventh Amendment barred claims against the university itself and that the complaint lacked sufficient factual specificity under Iqbal.
The Facts
The plaintiff was employed at Texas A&M University at Commerce. She alleged that after she engaged in protected speech — reporting misconduct or expressing views on matters of public concern — university officials retaliated against her, ultimately terminating her employment. She claimed she was denied procedural due process in connection with her termination and that the retaliation violated her First Amendment rights.
She sued the university itself and several individual officials in both their official and individual capacities.
What the Court Decided
The court dismissed the claims against the university under the Eleventh Amendment, which bars suits against state entities (including state universities) in federal court unless the state has waived its sovereign immunity or Congress has abrogated it. Texas has not waived its immunity, and § 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.
For claims against individual officials in their official capacity, the court applied the same analysis: official-capacity suits against state officials are effectively suits against the state itself and are barred by the Eleventh Amendment — unless the plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief under the Ex parte Young doctrine.
For claims against officials in their individual capacity, the court found the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim. The First Amendment retaliation claim required showing that the plaintiff’s speech was on a matter of public concern and that the speech was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse action. The complaint’s allegations were too conclusory.
Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case
Kostic illustrates critical barriers in § 1983 litigation against state entities:
- Eleventh Amendment: State universities, state agencies, and the state itself cannot be sued for damages under § 1983 in federal court. You must sue individual officials instead.
- Official vs. individual capacity: Suing a state official in their official capacity is the same as suing the state — it’s barred by the Eleventh Amendment. To seek damages, sue officials in their individual capacity. For injunctive relief, use the Ex parte Young doctrine.
- Pleading specificity: For First Amendment retaliation claims against government employers, you must allege (1) you spoke on a matter of public concern, (2) your interest in speaking outweighed the employer’s interest in efficiency, (3) your speech motivated the adverse action, and (4) the employer would not have taken the same action absent the speech.
Key Takeaway
State universities and agencies are shielded from § 1983 damages suits by the Eleventh Amendment — to pursue your claim, you must sue individual officials in their individual capacity with specific factual allegations showing how each official personally violated your constitutional rights.