State sovereign immunity and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents

Caption

J. Daniel Kimel, Jr., et al. v. Florida Board of Regents, et al., 528 U.S. 62 (2000).

Facts

Petitioner employees filed suit against respondent state employers alleging that the employers discriminated against petitioners on the basis of age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 621 et seq. The respondents filed motions to dismiss those lawsuits, alleging that they were immune from suit under the theory of state sovereign immunity. The trial court granted the respondents' motions to dismiss, and the petitioners sought review of that decision. The appellant court consolidated their cases and affirmed the trial courts decisions. Petitioners sought review of that decision.

Procedural History

Petitioners sought review of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which had affirmed the trial court's decision granting respondents' motions to dismiss based on sovereign immunity under U.S. Const. amend. XI.

Issues

Does the ADEA contain a valid abrogation of state immunity, so that state employers can be liable for damages under the ADEA?

Holding

The Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and held that while the ADEA was not sufficiently specific to abrogate States' immunity, Congress did not have power under the Eleventh or Fourteenth Amendments to do so, and was prevented from establishing such a remedy against the states by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Rule of Law

There is a two part test to determine whether a federal law abrogates state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment: 1) did Congress unequivocally express an intent to authorize suit against the states; and 2) did Congress act pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority?

Dissenting Opinion

Thomas and Kennedy concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing that Congress did not have the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity for age discrimination, but finding that Congress had not made its intention to abrogate state sovereign immunity clear in the ADEA.

Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing that the ADEA did contain a clear expression of Congress' intent to abrogate sovereign immunity, finding that Congress had the power to authorize federal remedies against state agencies, and that neither the Eleventh Amendment or the doctrine of sovereign immunity limited Congress' power to authorize federal remedies against the states.