Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Becky L. Coats v. State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services
Date: 03-04-2014
Case Number: 13-4078
Judge: Neil M. Gorsuch
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on appeal from the District of Utah (Salt Lake County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Becky Coats works for the Utah Department of Workforce Services as an
unemployment insurance eligibility specialist, but she's long hoped for another job.
In fact, since 2000 she's applied for no fewer than 40 other positions within the
Department, only to be turned down each time. She alleges that's not because there
have been better available applicants but because of age discrimination, and she
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
- 2 -
charges the Department with violating the federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act. On the recommendation of a magistrate judge, however, the
district court dismissed Ms. Coats's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
noting that the Department had never waived and Congress had never abrogated its
Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. Ms. Coats appeals this disposition, but we
can find no fault with it. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation
carefully analyzed the relevant authorities and addressed Ms. Coats's arguments and
we affirm for substantially the reasons offered there. As to Ms. Coats' argument she
was entitled to discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), we note that rule pertains to
summary judgment proceedings. This case was not decided on summary judgment
but at the motion to dismiss stage. Ms. Coats' contention that the district court
abused its discretion in denying her Rule 56(d) motion is therefore without merit.
unemployment insurance eligibility specialist, but she's long hoped for another job.
In fact, since 2000 she's applied for no fewer than 40 other positions within the
Department, only to be turned down each time. She alleges that's not because there
have been better available applicants but because of age discrimination, and she
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
- 2 -
charges the Department with violating the federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act. On the recommendation of a magistrate judge, however, the
district court dismissed Ms. Coats's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
noting that the Department had never waived and Congress had never abrogated its
Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. Ms. Coats appeals this disposition, but we
can find no fault with it. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation
carefully analyzed the relevant authorities and addressed Ms. Coats's arguments and
we affirm for substantially the reasons offered there. As to Ms. Coats' argument she
was entitled to discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), we note that rule pertains to
summary judgment proceedings. This case was not decided on summary judgment
but at the motion to dismiss stage. Ms. Coats' contention that the district court
abused its discretion in denying her Rule 56(d) motion is therefore without merit.
Outcome:
Affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Becky L. Coats v. State of Utah, Department of Workforce ...?
The outcome was: Affirmed.
Which court heard Becky L. Coats v. State of Utah, Department of Workforce ...?
This case was heard in United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on appeal from the District of Utah (Salt Lake County), UT. The presiding judge was Neil M. Gorsuch.
When was Becky L. Coats v. State of Utah, Department of Workforce ... decided?
This case was decided on March 4, 2014.