Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents
Encyclopedia
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) was a United States Supreme Court
case that determined that the Congress's
enforcement powers
under the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution
did not extend to the abrogation
of state sovereign immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment
where the discrimination complained of was rationally based on age.
and Florida International University
, including J. Daniel Kimel, Jr., sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967 (the ADEA) because failure to adjust pay had a disparate impact on older employees. Wellington Dickson sued his employer, the Florida Department of Corrections
, for not promoting him because of his age. Roderick MacPherson and Marvin Narz, who were associate professors at the University of Montevallo
in Alabama
, sued under the ADEA law alleging an evaluation system that discriminated against the elderly. The cases of Kimel, Dickson, MacPherson and Narz were consolidated on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit
, and remained consolidated when the Supreme Court granted certiorari
.
Kimel invalidated the ADEA insofar as it allowed plaintiffs to sue states for money damages.
The Supreme Court had previously held that the sovereign immunity of states — a principle ultimately derived from English common law, and originally used to refer to the immunity of the English monarch from suit — normally barred them from being sued by private citizens in federal court. Specifically, Hans v. Louisiana
(1890) interpreted the Eleventh Amendment as implying the sovereign immunity of states from being sued by its own citizens, even though its express terms provide only that citizens of one state cannot sue another state. The Rehnquist Court reaffirmed the sovereign immunity of states in Alden v. Maine
and Seminole Tribe v. Florida
. These cases, extending Hans, held that Congress could not use its powers under Article I of the Constitution to abrogate state sovereign immunity.
In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
(1976), however, the Court held that Congress could use its power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment — which allows Congress to enforce the substantive terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, including the Equal Protection Clause, by positive legislation — to override state sovereign immunity. But in 1997, in City of Boerne v. Flores
, the Court limited congressional power to override state sovereign immunity using the Fourteenth Amendment, and for the first time required "congruence and proportionality" between the constitutional wrong and the congressionally enacted remedy to protect constitutional rights. Boerne held that it was the Court, and only the Court, that could determine what constituted a constitutional wrong, and that Congress could not permissibly increase the level of constitutional protection beyond that which the Court had recognized. Specifically, Boerne interpreted the scope of section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
The Court in Kimel based its decision in large part on Boerne. The importance of Kimel was the strict limits it placed on the ability of Congress to abrogate the states' sovereign immunity under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
" test, as opposed to legal classifications based on race or gender, where a "history of purposeful unequal treatment" leads the Court to apply strict scrutiny
to such laws. The Court then contrasted rational basis review with the ADEA, which prohibits all employment discrimination on the basis of age, except where age is a "bona fide occupational qualification." The ADEA, the Court concluded, "prohibits substantially more state employment decisions and practices than would likely be held unconstitutional under the applicable equal protection, rational basis standard." Therefore, the ADEA's remedy failed the "congruence and proportionality" test required by Boerne and so was not "a valid exercise of constitutional authority" under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In explaining the application of rational basis review to classifications based on age, the majority stated:
Justice Stevens's dissenting opinion said, "There is not a word in the text of the Constitution supporting the Court’s conclusion that the judge-made doctrine of sovereign immunity limits Congress’ power to authorize private parties, as well as federal agencies, to enforce federal law against the States." Justice Stevens referred to the doctrine of sovereign immunity as expanded by Seminole Tribe v. Florida and Alden v. Maine as "judicial activism
."
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
case that determined that the Congress's
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
enforcement powers
Congressional power of enforcement
A Congressional power of enforcement is included in a number of amendments to the United States Constitution. The language "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" is used, with slight variations, in Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XVIII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI...
under the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
to the Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
did not extend to the abrogation
Abrogation doctrine
The Abrogation doctrine is a constitutional law doctrine expounding when and how the Congress may waive a state's sovereign immunity and subject it to lawsuits to which the state has not consented ....
of state sovereign immunity
Sovereign immunity
Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution....
under the Eleventh Amendment
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794, and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity. This amendment was adopted in order to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v...
where the discrimination complained of was rationally based on age.
Facts and result
Employees of Florida State UniversityFlorida State University
The Florida State University is a space-grant and sea-grant public university located in Tallahassee, Florida, United States. It is a comprehensive doctoral research university with medical programs and significant research activity as determined by the Carnegie Foundation...
and Florida International University
Florida International University
Florida International University is an American public research university in metropolitan Miami, Florida, in the United States, with its main campus in University Park...
, including J. Daniel Kimel, Jr., sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Age Discrimination in Employment Act
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-202Code, through , forbids employment discrimination against anyone at least 40 years of age in the United States .-Scope of Protection:...
of 1967 (the ADEA) because failure to adjust pay had a disparate impact on older employees. Wellington Dickson sued his employer, the Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
The Florida Department of Corrections, established in 1821, operates state prisons in Florida. It has its headquarters in Tallahassee.The Florida Department of Corrections operates the third largest state prison system in the United States...
, for not promoting him because of his age. Roderick MacPherson and Marvin Narz, who were associate professors at the University of Montevallo
University of Montevallo
The University of Montevallo is a four-year public university located in Montevallo, Alabama, USA. Founded in 1896, it is Alabama's only public liberal arts college and a member of the Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges. Programs are offered through the Michael E...
in Alabama
Alabama
Alabama is a state located in the southeastern region of the United States. It is bordered by Tennessee to the north, Georgia to the east, Florida and the Gulf of Mexico to the south, and Mississippi to the west. Alabama ranks 30th in total land area and ranks second in the size of its inland...
, sued under the ADEA law alleging an evaluation system that discriminated against the elderly. The cases of Kimel, Dickson, MacPherson and Narz were consolidated on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Middle District of Alabama...
, and remained consolidated when the Supreme Court granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
.
Kimel invalidated the ADEA insofar as it allowed plaintiffs to sue states for money damages.
Legal background
Kimel concerned the ability of Congress to abrogate the states' "sovereign immunity" using its power under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Kimel Court held that state sovereign immunity prohibits Congress from enacting laws that allow suits for money damages against states, when those suits are aimed against what the Court described as "rational" discrimination on the basis of age.The Supreme Court had previously held that the sovereign immunity of states — a principle ultimately derived from English common law, and originally used to refer to the immunity of the English monarch from suit — normally barred them from being sued by private citizens in federal court. Specifically, Hans v. Louisiana
Hans v. Louisiana
Hans v. Louisiana, , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court determining that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits the citizen of a U.S. state to sue that state in a federal court.-Facts:The plaintiff, Hans, was a citizen of the state of Louisiana...
(1890) interpreted the Eleventh Amendment as implying the sovereign immunity of states from being sued by its own citizens, even though its express terms provide only that citizens of one state cannot sue another state. The Rehnquist Court reaffirmed the sovereign immunity of states in Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States about whether the United States Congress may use its Article One powers to abrogate a state's sovereign immunity from suits in its own courts, thereby allowing citizens to sue a state without the state's...
and Seminole Tribe v. Florida
Seminole Tribe v. Florida
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 , was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the Eleventh Amendment...
. These cases, extending Hans, held that Congress could not use its powers under Article I of the Constitution to abrogate state sovereign immunity.
In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the U.S. Congress has the power to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity of the states, if this is done pursuant to its Fourteenth Amendment power to enforce upon the states the...
(1976), however, the Court held that Congress could use its power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment — which allows Congress to enforce the substantive terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, including the Equal Protection Clause, by positive legislation — to override state sovereign immunity. But in 1997, in City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 , was a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of Congress's enforcement power under the fifth section of the Fourteenth Amendment...
, the Court limited congressional power to override state sovereign immunity using the Fourteenth Amendment, and for the first time required "congruence and proportionality" between the constitutional wrong and the congressionally enacted remedy to protect constitutional rights. Boerne held that it was the Court, and only the Court, that could determine what constituted a constitutional wrong, and that Congress could not permissibly increase the level of constitutional protection beyond that which the Court had recognized. Specifically, Boerne interpreted the scope of section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
The Court in Kimel based its decision in large part on Boerne. The importance of Kimel was the strict limits it placed on the ability of Congress to abrogate the states' sovereign immunity under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rationale
Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority, stated that Congress in enacting the ADEA had properly declared its intent to subject states to suits for money damages by private individuals. The Court then noted that under the Court's equal protection jurisprudence, "age is not a suspect classification," and laws which classify on the basis of age need only pass the Court's "rational basis reviewRational basis review
Rational basis review, in U.S. constitutional law, refers to a level of scrutiny applied by courts when deciding cases presenting constitutional due process or equal protection issues related to the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Rational basis is the lowest level of scrutiny that a...
" test, as opposed to legal classifications based on race or gender, where a "history of purposeful unequal treatment" leads the Court to apply strict scrutiny
Strict scrutiny
Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or...
to such laws. The Court then contrasted rational basis review with the ADEA, which prohibits all employment discrimination on the basis of age, except where age is a "bona fide occupational qualification." The ADEA, the Court concluded, "prohibits substantially more state employment decisions and practices than would likely be held unconstitutional under the applicable equal protection, rational basis standard." Therefore, the ADEA's remedy failed the "congruence and proportionality" test required by Boerne and so was not "a valid exercise of constitutional authority" under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In explaining the application of rational basis review to classifications based on age, the majority stated:
Justice Stevens's dissenting opinion said, "There is not a word in the text of the Constitution supporting the Court’s conclusion that the judge-made doctrine of sovereign immunity limits Congress’ power to authorize private parties, as well as federal agencies, to enforce federal law against the States." Justice Stevens referred to the doctrine of sovereign immunity as expanded by Seminole Tribe v. Florida and Alden v. Maine as "judicial activism
Judicial activism
Judicial activism describes judicial ruling suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The definition of judicial activism, and which specific decisions are activist, is a controversial...
."
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 528
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume