Kimel v. Florida Board Of Regents

Facts

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA or Act), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. III), makes it unlawful for an employer, including a State, 'to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual's age.' The ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). In 1974, in a statute consisting primarily of amendments to the FLSA, Congress extended application of the ADEA's substantive requirements to the States. In December 1994, Roderick MacPherson and Marvin Narz, ages 57 and 58 at the time, filed suit under the ADEA against their employer, the University of Montevallo. They alleged age discrimination. MacPherson and Narz sought declaratory and injunctive relief, back pay, promotions to full professor, and compensatory and punitive damages. The University of Montevallo moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending it was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court granted the University's motion. The court determined that, although the ADEA contains a clear statement of Congress' intent to abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity, Congress did not enact or extend the ADEA under its Fourteenth Amendment § 5 enforcement power. The District Court, therefore, held that the ADEA did not abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity. In another suit, in April 1995, a group of current and former faculty and librarians of Florida State University, including J. Daniel Kimel, Jr., the named petitioner in one of today's cases, filed suit against the Florida Board of Regents in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. They alleged that the Florida Board of Regents refused to require the two state universities to allocate funds to provide previously agreed upon market adjustments to the salaries of eligible university employees. They contend that the failure to allocate the funds violated both the ADEA and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. The plaintiffs sought backpay, liquidated damages, and permanent salary adjustments as relief. The Florida Board of Regents moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity. The District Court denied the motion, holding that Congress expressed its intent to abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity in the ADEA and that the ADEA is a proper exercise of congressional authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. In still another suit Wellington Dickson filed suit against his employer, the Florida Department of Corrections, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Dickson alleged that the state employer failed to promote him because of his age and because he had filed grievances with respect to the alleged acts of age discrimination. Dickson sought injunctive relief, backpay, and compensatory and punitive damages. The Florida Department of Corrections moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that it was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court denied that motion holding that Congress unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity in the ADEA and that Congress had authority to do so under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Appeals in the three cases were consolidated before the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which held that the ADEA does not validly abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, to resolve a conflict among the Federal Courts of Appeals on the question whether the ADEA validly abrogates the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.