Shumate v. Lynchburg: Fourth Circuit Clarifies the Non-Applicability of Eleventh-Amendment Immunity to Municipal Officials and Reinforces § 1367 Discretion

Introduction

Mary Lynn Shumate, a veteran firefighter, sued the City of Lynchburg and two high-ranking officials after she was demoted for remarks perceived as hostile toward a gay co-worker. Her complaint raised: (1) sex discrimination under Title VII; (2) Title VII retaliation; and (3) retaliation under Virginia’s Fraud and Abuse Whistle Blower Protection Act (“FAWBPA”). The Western District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims and dismissed the state-law claim on sovereign-immunity grounds. Shumate appealed.

On 20 August 2025, a Fourth Circuit panel (Diaz, Niemeyer, and Judge Maddox sitting by designation) affirmed the Title VII rulings but vacated the dismissal of the FAWBPA claim, holding that:

Municipal entities and their officials are not immune in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment, and
The district court retains ordinary supplemental-jurisdiction discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to either reach the state claim or decline it as “novel or complex.”

Summary of the Judgment

Title VII Sex Discrimination (Count 1): Summary judgment for the City is affirmed. The plaintiff failed to create a genuine dispute that the alleged adverse actions were motivated by sex.
Title VII Retaliation (Count 2): Summary judgment for the City is affirmed. The City articulated a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason (policy violations and dishonesty), and Shumate presented no evidence of pretext.
Virginia FAWBPA Retaliation (Count 3): Dismissal is vacated. Because municipalities are not “arms of the State,” Eleventh-Amendment immunity does not bar the claim in federal court. The appellate court remands so the district judge can decide, in the first instance, whether to exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction.

In-Depth Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Foster v. University of Maryland–Eastern Shore, 787 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2015)
Provided the three-step McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test for retaliation. The panel used Foster to confirm that once the employer offers a legitimate reason, the plaintiff must show both falsity and retaliation as the real motive—something Shumate could not do.
Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011)
Cited by the district court for the proposition that a State’s waiver in its own courts does not waive immunity in federal court. The Fourth Circuit distinguished municipalities from States and thus limited Sossamon’s reach.
Mt. Healthy City School District Bd. of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) & Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391 (1979)
Establish that counties and similar local bodies are not protected by the Eleventh Amendment. These cases drove the appellate court’s conclusion that Lynchburg and its officials enjoy no such immunity.
Cash v. Granville County Bd. of Educ., 242 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2001)
Reiterates that entities which are not “arms of the State” cannot invoke Eleventh-Amendment immunity. Helpful in rejecting sovereign immunity for municipal officials.
Massenburg v. City of Petersburg, 836 S.E.2d 391 (Va. 2019)
Demonstrates that Virginia common-law grants localities sovereign immunity in state court; yet that state-law immunity is distinct from constitutionally grounded Eleventh-Amendment immunity.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Title VII Claims

The panel conducted a de novo review of the summary-judgment record.

Discrimination: The incidents Shumate cited—limitations on asking questions, ill-fitting vests, leave denials, doctor’s notes—were each countered by gender-neutral explanations or evidence that males were treated similarly.
Retaliation: Applying Foster, the City’s reasons (harassment findings and dishonesty during the investigation) were legitimate and unrebutted. No evidence of falsity or retaliatory animus emerged.

2. Sovereign-Immunity Analysis

The central doctrinal move was to separate three different concepts often conflated:

Eleventh-Amendment Immunity: Protects States and “arms of the State” from federal-court suit absent waiver.
Municipal Common-Law Sovereign Immunity (State-Law Concept): Virginia extends certain tort immunities to its local governments in state court.
Statutory Waiver in FAWBPA: § 2.2-3011(D) expressly allows suits against an “employer”—defined broadly—in state court.

The district court wrongly imported the Eleventh Amendment into a context involving a city and its officials. The Fourth Circuit relied on Mt. Healthy, Lake Country Estates, and Cash to hold that Lynchburg and its officers are outside the Amendment’s ambit. The panel then emphasized § 1367(c)(1), noting the district court’s discretion—rather than compulsion—to decline a “novel or complex” state-law claim.

C. Potential Impact

Clarifies Immunity Doctrine: District courts within the Fourth Circuit now have explicit guidance that municipal officials may not invoke Eleventh-Amendment immunity, even where state law affords them certain protections.
Practical Litigation Consequence: Plaintiffs bringing FAWBPA or similar state whistle-blower claims may keep their causes in federal court as supplemental claims, barring a § 1367(c) declination.
Judicial Economy and Forum-Shopping: The decision discourages automatic remand or dismissal of state whistle-blower counts, which could otherwise force piecemeal state and federal litigation.
Title VII Pretext Standards Reaffirmed: The opinion underscores the evidentiary burden at the third step of McDonnell Douglas.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Eleventh-Amendment Immunity: A constitutional protection preventing States (and genuine “arms of the State”) from being sued in federal court unless they consent.
Municipal Sovereign Immunity (State Law): Some States—like Virginia—grant tort immunities to cities and local officials in their own courts. This is not grounded in the Eleventh Amendment and does not automatically apply in federal court.
McDonnell Douglas Framework: The three-stage proof structure for discrimination/retaliation: (1) plaintiff’s prima facie case, (2) employer’s legitimate reason, (3) plaintiff’s proof of pretext.
Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367): Allows federal courts to hear state-law claims tied to federal ones. Subsection (c)(1) lets a court decline when the claim is “novel or complex.”
FAWBPA: Virginia statute protecting public employees from retaliation when disclosing fraud or abuse. It waives sovereign immunity in Virginia courts and provides damages and reinstatement remedies.

Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit’s unpublished—but instructive—decision in Shumate v. City of Lynchburg performs dual service. First, it reaffirms orthodox Title VII doctrine, illustrating how courts scrutinize alleged comparators and weigh purportedly retaliatory motives. Second—and more novel—it draws a bright line between Eleventh-Amendment immunity and state-law municipal immunity, holding that city officials cannot shield themselves from federal suit on Eleventh-Amendment grounds. By remanding under § 1367, the court preserves district-court flexibility while signaling that federal forums remain open to statutory whistle-blower claims against municipal actors. Future litigants should take heed: municipalities must defend state whistle-blower claims in federal court unless a judge, exercising informed discretion, decides otherwise.