Coger v. Board of Regents of Tennessee

Sixth Circuit

Coger v. Board of Regents of Tennessee

209 F.3d 485

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided April 4, 2000·No. No. 97-5134·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION

COLE, Circuit Judge.

In our prior opinion in this case, Coger v. Board of Regents, 154 F.3d 296, 307 (6th Cir.1998), we concluded that Congress intended to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit by its enactment of the 1974 amendments to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and that it had the authority to do so pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion, now has determined that although the ADEA does contain a clear statement of Congress’ intent to abrogate the states’ immunity, the abrogation exceeded Congress’ authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, — U.S. -, -, 120 S.Ct. 631, 649-50, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000).

Having carefully considered the present case.in light of Kimel, we conclude that the faculty members cannot maintain their ADEA suit against the University, a state employer. We therefore VACATE our prior judgment and AFFIRM the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ ADEA action. •

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

COLE, Circuit Judge.

In our prior opinion in this case, Coger v. Board of Regents, 154 F.3d 296, 307 (6th Cir.1998), we concluded that Congress intended to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit by its enactment of the 1974 amendments to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and that it had the authority to do so pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion, now has determined that although the ADEA does contain a clear statement of Congress’ intent to abrogate the states’ immunity, the abrogation exceeded Congress’ authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, — U.S. -, -, 120 S.Ct. 631, 649-50, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000).

Having carefully considered the present case.in light of Kimel, we conclude that the faculty members cannot maintain their ADEA suit against the University, a state employer. We therefore VACATE our prior judgment and AFFIRM the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ ADEA action. •

Coger v. Board of Regents of Tennessee, 209 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2000).

Pincite

209 F.3d 485 (Coger v. Board of Regents of Tennessee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Dalvan M. Coger Joseph K. Davis Carolyn Thorpe Furr Lucille Golightly Thomas M. Hughes Janie S. Knight Charles E. Long, Jr. Harry Richard Mahood Ramona Madson Mahood Robert Marshall Betty Hull Owen June Rose Richie Steve Scesa Charles R. Schroeder Robert A. Snyder Bob J. Tucker Sharon L. Van Oteghen, William Welch, United States of America, Intervenor v. Board of Regents of the State of Tennessee, a Subdivision of the State of Tennessee Memphis State University, an Institution Operated by the State Board of Regents Thomas G. Carpenter, Individually and as President of Memphis State University Victor E. Feisal, Individually and as Vice-President of Academic Affairs at Memphis State University

209 F.3d 485 (Sixth Circuit, 2000)

Opinion

Related