Chet A. Hurd v. Pittsburg State University, and William Mark Simmons, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae
Opinion
The issue in this case is whether lawsuits under the Age Discrimination Employment *565 Act (“ADEA”) brought by private litigants against the state in federal court are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion published at 821 F.Supp. 1410 (D.Kan.1993), the district court held that Congress intended to abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it passed the ADEA. The only additions we can make to the district court’s opinion are the citations for two more cases that support its holding. Specifically, in addition to the cases cited by the district court, both the Seventh Circuit, see Heiar v. Crawford County, Wis., 746 F.2d 1190 (1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1027, 105 S.Ct. 3500, 87 L.Ed.2d 631 (1985), and the First Circuit, see Ramirez v. Puerto Rico Fire Serv., 715 F.2d 694 (1st Cir.1983), have held that Congress intended to abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it passed the ADEA. Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the same reasons given by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
29 F.3d 564 (Chet A. Hurd v. Pittsburg State University, and William Mark Simmons, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.