Blogs

The 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extends sovereign immunity to the states and their agencies. In a recent case, Guadiana v. City and County of Denver (10th Cir. 2022), the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated that sovereign immunity does not extend to counties, cities, or other political subdivisions of the state.

In 2015, the Family and Adult Assistance Division of the Denver Department of Human Services (DDHS) at the City and County of Denver hired Kristen Guadiana as an eligibility technician. Soon after being hired, she revealed to her supervisor that she was physically unable to type with her left hand because of her cerebral palsy, which led to slower work. Guadiana alleged that efforts to accommodate her impairment over the next year were inadequate and that she was eventually terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The sole issue for the 10th Circuit to consider was whether Denver was entitled to 11th Amendment sovereign immunity. The amendment prohibits lawsuits by citizens against their own states. The protection extends to agencies that act as an arm of the state, but it does not extend to counties, cities, or other political subdivisions of the state. Here, Denver argued that Guadiana was employed by DDHS in its role as an arm of the state and sovereign immunity extended to Denver.

The 10th Circuit did not find this argument persuasive. After noting that consideration of a motion to dismiss required that Guadiana’s allegations be taken as true, the court relied upon her allegations that Denver paid her, provided her benefits, trained her, and terminated her under its Career Service Rules. Further, Guadiana named Denver, and not DDHS (a separate entity under Colorado law), as her employer. Therefore, Denver could not invoke sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment because it “does not extend to counties, cities, or other political subdivisions of the state.” As a result, Guadiana’s lawsuit could move forward to the merits. 

While Guadiana’s victory was procedural in nature, allowing her case to continue to the next phase of litigation, it may hold some precedential value on which future city employees can rely in pursuing discrimination and retaliation claims. Ultimately, public employers, such as counties, cities, or other political subdivisions of the state, should not engage in practices that might be used as evidence that they, and not their agency acting as an arm of the state, are the actual employer. If you have any questions, please email the Employers Council Member Experience team.