In a discrimination lawsuit, a federal appeals court has ruled that the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board is entitled to sovereign immunity because it is “an arm of the commonwealth.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court judge's dismissal of plaintiff Earl Patterson's 14th Amendment equal protection case against the PLCB stemming from accusations that he stole from a liquor store.

Patterson worked as a maintenance man for the PLCB. In November 2014, he reported to state liquor store in Eddystone for a maintenance check but was treated rudely by the manager, causing him to return to his van, according to Third Circuit Judge L. Felipe Restrepo's precedential Feb. 12 opinion.

Shortly after leaving the store, Patterson was pulled over by police responding to a report from the store manager stating a “black guy” in a “state van” tried to rob the store, according to Restrepo.

Patterson subsequently filed a complaint against the PLCB, which was dismissed after the judge held that the board was immune under the 11th Amendment.

The analysis focused on whether the PLCB was an arm of the state, determined by three factors: (1) a state's legal obligation to pay a money judgment entered against the entity; (2) whether the agency has money to satisfy the judgment; and (3) whether there are specific statutory provisions that immunize the state from liability for money judgments.

In response to the first factor, Restrepo said the PLCB is responsible for paying money judgments and the state is not required to indemnify it. And regarding the second factor, if the PLCB is unable to pay a judgment, it could be subsidized by the state.

As for the third factor, Restrepo said, “Pennsylvania statutory and case law indicate that the PLCB is considered an arm of the state for sovereign immunity purposes.”

To further determine whether the agency was an arm of the state, the court looked at the degree of autonomy that the PLCB is allotted.

While its powers originate from the state, “The PLCB does have some autonomy, however, in that it has the power to grant and revoke liquor licenses, lease buildings for liquor stores, and make certain regulations that it deems necessary for the efficient administration of the Liquor Code,” Restrepo said. “Nonetheless, these powers were ascribed by the state and are still subject to the Administrative Code”

Patterson's attorney, W. Charles Sipio of Kolman Ely, said, “I'm disappointed in the court's decision but I do respect it.”

Claudia M. Tesoro of the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office, declined to comment.