Coger v. Board of Regents of Tennessee

Sixth Circuit

Coger v. Board of Regents of Tennessee

209 F.3d 485

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 2000

DocketNo. 97-5134

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 F.3d 485 (Coger v. Board of Regents of Tennessee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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. •

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 F.3d 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coger-v-board-of-regents-of-tennessee-ca6-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack