J. Daniel Kimel, JR., et al. v. Florida Board of Regents, et al. (528 U.S. 62)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 11, 2000 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 528 U.S. 62 · 120 S. Ct. 631
- Decided
- January 11, 2000
- Term
- October Term 1999
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice O'Connor
- Issue area
- Federalism
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
- Constitutional ruling
- Federal law held unconstitutional
Opinion excerpt
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. 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.” 29 U.S. C. § 623(a)(1). In these cases, three sets of plaintiffs filed suit under the Act, seeking money damages for their state employers’ alleged discrimination on the basis of age. In each case, the state employer moved to dismiss the suit on the basis of its Eleventh Amendment immunity. The District Court in one case granted the motion to dismiss, while in each of the remaining cases the District Court denied the motion. 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. In these cases, we are asked to consider whether the ADEA contains a clear statement of Congress’ intent to abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity and, if so, whether the ADEA is a proper exercise of Congress’ constitutional authority. We conclude that the ADEA does contain a clear statement of Congress’ intent to abrogate the States’ immunity, but that the abrogation…
Excerpt of a 53,870-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.