Discrimination & retaliation claims under Title I & Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Board of Trs of Univ of AL v Garrett; Sovereign immunity; State law claims under Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) & for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED): Dismissal without prejudice; Appellate jurisdiction; Premature notice of appeal; Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims; Motion to amend

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] In an issue not yet considered by the Supreme Court or the Sixth Circuit, the court held, among other things, that the States are entitled to immunity from claims brought under Title V of the ADA. Defendant-WMU terminated plaintiff-Stanley’s employment after one month for “tardiness and failure to follow proper clocking-in procedures.” Stanley, who has “severe ADHD,” sued for retaliation and discrimination under the ADA, and asserted state law claims for discrimination under Michigan’s PWDCRA, and IIED. The district court dismissed his claims “with prejudice.” The court first held that it had jurisdiction to review the case even though Stanley’s notice of appeal was premature because the judgment became final before disposition of the appeal. The court then considered the dismissal of his federal claims based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. It explained that WMU was chartered under the Michigan Constitution and is considered to be “‘part of the state government[,]’” It noted that the Supreme Court held in Garrett “that an employee cannot maintain an action under Title I of the ADA against the State.” The court rejected Stanley’s attempt to invoke the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity as the exception “does not allow suits ‘against the state itself.’” The individual defendants were entitled to the same immunity in their “official capacities,” and were not subject to liability under the ADA in their personal capacities. The court next held that his ADA retaliation claims also failed, concluding “[b]ecause Congress’s legislative findings and the congressional record do not reflect a history and pattern of retaliation by the States against public employees for opposing disability discrimination, . . . Congress did not have authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to remove States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for ADA retaliation claims predicated on a violation of Title I of the ADA.” The court noted that in so holding, it joined every circuit to have considered the issue. But it found that the ADA claims should have been dismissed without prejudice because the dismissal was based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Stanley’s state law claims should have also been dismissed without prejudice because the district court did not have jurisdiction to decide them given that it “‘lacked subject matter jurisdiction over any federal issues.’” Finally, the court concluded the district court did not err in denying Stanley’s motion to amend his complaint. The court affirmed the dismissal of his ADA claims and the denial of his motion for leave to amend his complaint. It vacated the judgment dismissing his federal and state-law claims with prejudice and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss those claims without prejudice.