Extending Engquist to Academia: The Alabama Supreme Court Refines Class-of-One Claims and § 14 Immunity in Ex parte Roberts

1. Introduction

This commentary unpacks the Supreme Court of Alabama’s mandamus opinion in Ex parte B.T. Roberts, et al., decided 27 June 2025. The petition arose from a dispute between Patti and Walter Northcutt and Auburn University officials and trustees over (i) alleged retaliation connected to prior Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) litigation settlements, (ii) interference with Patti Northcutt’s pursuit of a doctorate, and (iii) failure to consider her for university employment. The trial court had declined to dismiss six counts (3-8) of the Northcutts’ third-amended complaint; the defendants sought mandamus to compel dismissal on federal qualified-immunity and Alabama § 14 sovereign-immunity grounds.

The Alabama Supreme Court:

Granted the writ in part—dismissing individual-capacity damages claims premised on class-of-one Equal Protection and procedural Due Process theories (Counts 3 & 4), and striking attorney-fee requests tethered to state-law injunctive relief; and
Denied the writ in part—allowing requests for prospective injunctive relief under § 1983 to proceed and declining to dismiss state-law contract and tortious-interference damages claims at the Rule 12 stage.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Applying federal qualified immunity and Alabama constitutional immunity, the Court held:

No monetary liability for academic/employment decisions under class-of-one Equal Protection or procedural Due Process theories. Engaging Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, the Court found any right allegedly violated was not “clearly established” and therefore officials were immune.
Prospective injunctive relief under § 1983 survives. The mandamus petition addressed only “retrospective” relief; the complaint primarily sought forward-looking orders (e.g., conferral of a Ph.D.), so those claims may proceed.
Attorney fees attached to state-law injunctive claims are barred by § 14. Following Ex parte Town of Lowndesboro, any fee award payable from the Treasury violates sovereign immunity.
State-law contract and tortious-interference damages claims against individuals were not mandamus-dismissed. Because the defendants argued merits rather than immunity, the Court declined extraordinary relief.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) – Held class-of-one Equal Protection claims generally do not lie in public-employment contexts. Alabama’s Court extrapolated Engquist’s “discretionary-decision” rationale to university academic and employment decisions, aligning with Eleventh Circuit precedent (Carruth v. Bentley, 942 F.3d 1047 (11th Cir. 2019)) and federal district examples (Yan v. Penn State Univ.).
Cotton v. Jackson, 216 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2000) – Reaffirmed requirement that state must deny adequate post-deprivation remedies before a procedural Due Process claim arises; applied to dismiss Count 4.
Ex parte Pinkard, 373 So. 3d 192 (Ala. 2022) and Ex parte Town of Lowndesboro, 950 So. 2d 1203 (Ala. 2006) – Clarified scope of § 14 immunity, leading to strike of state-law attorney-fee request.
Additional supportive cases: Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562; McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir.); Childs v. Pommer, 348 So. 3d 379 (Ala. 2021) (contract standing); Ala. A&M Univ. v. Jones, 895 So. 2d 867 (Ala. 2004) (university immunity).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(a) Qualified Immunity Path: The employee-defendants showed they acted within discretionary authority; the burden shifted to plaintiffs. The Court, employing Pearson v. Callahan, chose the “clearly-established” prong first. It found:

Academic advising, committee composition, and hiring decisions entail “subjective, individualized assessments.” Under Engquist, a reasonable official lacked fair notice that disparate treatment of a single student/ applicant violates Equal Protection; similarly, Cotton foreclosed procedural Due Process because state-court remedies exist.

(b) § 14 Immunity Analysis: Official‐capacity monetary or retrospective relief against trustees/employees equals a claim on the State. Attorney fees payable from the Treasury are likewise barred. Yet Ex parte Moulton recognizes an exception for prospective injunctions alleging ongoing violations, so those claims remain.

(c) Treatment of State-Law Counts: The petitioners argued non-enforceability/stranger status, but the Court labeled these “merits” issues inappropriate for mandamus. Because the individual-capacity prayers would extract damages from personal assets (not the State), § 14 was not implicated at this juncture.

3.3 Impact on Alabama and Eleventh-Circuit Litigation

Academic Decisions Now Squarely Within Engquist Shield (in Alabama). The opinion cements at state-supreme-court level that discretionary academic determinations cannot ground class-of-one claims absent explicit discriminatory class-based animus, tightening room for disgruntled students or faculty to sue individual officials.
Re-affirms Limited Window for Attorney Fees Against State. Litigants seeking equitable relief must structure fee petitions under federal bases (§ 1988) and expect denial under state causes.
Mandamus Strategy Refined. Petitioners must target true immunity defects; arguments attacking contractual standing or “stranger” elements will not be entertained in extraordinary review.
Practical Compliance Incentive. Prospective relief remains viable: Universities must still ensure grievance procedures, committee protocols, and hiring practices withstand judicial scrutiny even if damages are off the table.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Immunity – A defense for government employees sued personally: they avoid damages unless they violated a right that was “clearly established” and obvious to a reasonable official.
Class-of-One Equal Protection Claim – A lawsuit alleging government singled out one person (not a minority group) for worse treatment without rational reason.
§ 14 Sovereign Immunity (Alabama) – The State cannot be sued in its own courts; suing an official in their “official capacity” is treated the same as suing the State.
Prospective vs. Retrospective Relief – Prospective relief looks forward (ordering the State to do or stop something). Retrospective relief seeks compensation for past wrongs.
Mandamus – An extraordinary appellate writ ordering a lower court to take or refrain from specific action when there is a clear legal right and no adequate alternative remedy.

5. Conclusion

Ex parte Roberts is significant for two reasons: it firmly imports Engquist’s limitation on class-of-one suits into the realm of university academic discretion, and it reinforces the impermeability of Alabama’s § 14 sovereign immunity with respect to monetary consequences—even attorney fees—stemming from state-law causes. While plaintiffs retain avenues for forward-looking equitable relief and contractual or tort recovery against officials personally, the decision narrows exposure for university actors facing constitutional tort claims over individualized academic or employment disputes. Future litigants must now calibrate pleadings accordingly: focus on systemic, class-based discrimination or pursue non-constitutional state remedies if they hope to survive immunity barriers in Alabama courts.