Monday, July 25, 2016

Sovereign immunity should not protect Bentley in lawsuit from former ALEA chief Spencer Collier

Spencer Collier, with Robert Bentley (background, left)
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley has refused to answer discovery in a lawsuit against him, claiming that he is protected from suit by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Does Bentley have a point? He has a legal defense that is worth raising, one that most any state agent likely would bring under similar circumstances. But will Bentley prevail on the issue and find himself dismissed from former Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA) chief Spencer Collier's lawsuit? Our research suggests the answer is no.

Bentley fired Collier in March, and Collier responded with a lawsuit in April, claiming he was terminated because he knew about Bentley's extramarital affair with former advisor Rebekah Caldwell Mason, and Bentley had improperly ordered him to not give statements to prosecutors in the public corruption case against House Speaker Mike Hubbard. After being terminated, Collier stated publicly that he had seen evidence of the Bentley/Mason affair.

What is sovereign immunity? That's not an easy question to answer. A case styled Alabama State University v. Stacy Danley (Ala. Sup. Ct., 2016) provides a fairly concise answer. It boils down, mainly, to the source of damages if a plaintiff prevails; such damages generally cannot come from the state. Wrote the Danley court:

To determine whether an action against a State officer is, in fact, one against the State, this Court considers "whether 'a result favorable to the plaintiff would directly affect a contract or property right of the State . . . whether the defendant is simply a 'conduit' through which the plaintiff seeks recovery of damages from the State . . . and whether 'a judgment against the officer would directly affect the financial status of the State treasury,'

That last one, highlighted in yellow, seems to be the key consideration. But Collier appears to be seeking damages from Bentley, as an individual, and not (directly or indirectly) from the state.

Still, suing a governor is not easy, as made clear in Wheeler v. George, 39 So. 3d 1061 (Ala. Sup. Ct., 2009). In that case, the governor in question was Don Siegelman. The case involved procurement of property for a Hyundai plant:

The matters made the basis of the claims against then Governor Siegelman . . .  in causing the State to fund the purchase of the Shelton property for Hyundai, stem from actions taken while he was executing the duties of his office. Alabama courts have "consistently held that a claim for monetary damages made against a constitutional officer in the officer's individual capacity is barred by State immunity whenever the acts that are the basis of the alleged liability were performed within the course and scope of the officer's employment."

The highlighted section, we believe is where Bentley runs into trouble. Based on news reports, here is a key component of Collier's complaint. (See complaint at the end of this post.)

The complaint – as Collier has alleged from the beginning – says he was punished by Bentley, at the direction of Mason, because he refused to lie to the attorney general's office about prosecutorial misconduct alleged by the defense in the case of Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard.

Is it "within the course and scope" of Bentley's employment to interfere with a state prosecution? It's hard to imagine that it would be. Collier also could make the argument that he was fired for knowing about the Bentley/Mason extramarital affair. That might lead to this question: Does the scope of Bentley's employment include fondling, groping, and talking nasty to female advisors? For some reason, we doubt it.

Here is another consideration: Alabama courts long have cited six exceptions to the protections of sovereign immunity. Here is how the Alabama Supreme Court, in Danley, phrased No. 6:

(6) actions for injunction or damages brought against State officials in their representative capacity and individually where it was alleged that they had acted fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond their authority, or in a mistaken interpretation of law.

Bentley's own attorneys, in their motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds, state that "Collier attempts to plead his way around state-agent immunity by alleging that the Governor’s actions 'were willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith and/or beyond [his]authority.'” That's not an attempt "to plead his way around state-agent immunity"; that is a proper statement of an exception to sovereign-immunity protection.

At the very least, Collier should overcome Bentley's motion to dismiss and be able to conduct discovery -- seeking answers to interrogatories, depositions, and production of documents -- in order to overcome the hurdle of summary judgment and prove his case.

If the court follows the actual law -- and that's always a big "if" in Alabama courts -- Bentley's efforts to hide behind the cloak of sovereign immunity should fail.


Anonymous said...

Thanks for your insights, LS. Will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Anonymous said...

Sovereign immunity sounds like the perfect defense for a defendant who has something to hide.

Anonymous said...

Nice analysis LS! But I'm betting behind the scenes shenanigans will have the Luv Gov become King Luv Gov and they will allow this to be sovereign immunity. I mean, come on...your analysis makes too much sense for it to actually HAPPEN in an Alabama court of law.

legalschnauzer said...

Good point, @11:40. Alabama judges have been known to ignore the real law and do whatever the heck they want.

Anonymous said...

Why is this case not in federal court?

legalschnauzer said...

Good question, @3:24. That's where you expect to see an employment-related case, especially in Alabama. I assume Collier's attorneys saw some advantage to having it in state court, but I don't know what that would be.

Anonymous said...

Collier files a law suit in April to influence (Keep your mouth shut) Bentley's testimony at Hubbard's trial. The discovery Questions would interest a Honest US Attorney. Beck was in Matt Hart's back pocket. In May the US Attorney from Georgia replaced Beck and is investigating Bentley. This is going to get intersting. Matt Hart will wish Collier never filed the lawsuit.

legalschnauzer said...

Not sure I follow, @5:54. How would Collier's complaint in a civil matter influence Bentley's testimony in a criminal matter?

Anonymous said...

I have an idea about why the case isn't in federal court. I think it's because that process in an employment matter requires going through the EEOC, and that easily can take a year, before you are allowed to sue.

I think Collier wanted to move forward with his case quickly, hence the state-court venue.

legalschnauzer said...

You might have nailed it @6:58. I've been through the EEOC process myself, and it dragged on forever and accomplished nothing. Perhaps the EEOC has helped a few folks over the years, but I was extremely unimpressed.

Anonymous said...

The love Guv had a visitor upon the Camperdown. The Guv's former navigator apologized for the damage to the bow. The guv responded," Dont worry about it. I picked something up from Piggly Wiggly to patch things up. It appears the Victoria is sitting low in the water. Would you provide our guest some entertainment on your way out." A song began playing over the ships loud speaker.
When everbody's trying to sleep
I'm somewhere making my midnight creep
Yes,in the morning when the Rooster crow
Something tell me I got to go