Supreme Court Deals A Win and A Loss for States, Cities

By Parnas, Susan M. | Nation's Cities Weekly, January 17, 2000 | Go to article overview

Supreme Court Deals A Win and A Loss for States, Cities


Parnas, Susan M., Nation's Cities Weekly


A pair of important Supreme Court decisions on federalism left cities with a mixed bag: one, affirmation of local authority in the case of a federal employment statute and, two, a defeat on a matter of state autonomy under the 10th amendment, in which NLC had submitted an amicus brief on the side of the state.

Cities came out on top in the case Kimel v. Florida, No. 98-791 (Jan. 11, 2000), and the state took a loss in Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464 (January 12, 2000). An analysis of both cases follows.

Kimel v. Florida

In a clear victory for cities nationwide, the United States Supreme Court held that Congress could not force states and localities into federal court under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), because to do so exceeded its authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Kimel is an important case for cities as employers because it holds that there is no need for Congress to apply broad, one-size-fits-all federal legislation to states and localities in this area, and limits Congress' power to subject states and cities to often expensive federal litigation against theft express consent. On a broader scale, Kimel is an important case for the preservation of states' rights and federalism because it requires state and municipal employees to seek redress against theft state and municipal employers for alleged age discrimination claims in state courts, rather than in federal court under the ADEA. The National League of Cities filed a friend of the court brief in the Kimel case in support of the states of Alabama and Florida.

Background and Facts

At the time of its enactment the ADEA only applied to employers in the private sector. However, in 1974, Congress extended the application of the ADEA to the states and theft political subdivisions. The ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C. Section 623(a)(1).

The Kimel case is actually three separate cases with similar facts that were consolidated into one. The plaintiffs brought their lawsuits against the states of Florida and Alabama in federal court under the ADEA alleging age discrimination in such areas as failure to receive promotions, and employee evaluation systems and pay scale adjustments which had a disparate impact on older employees. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the states and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's Decision and Analysis

Under the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a private individual cannot bring a federal lawsuit against a state in federal court unless the state consents. In other words, unless expressly waived, states have sovereign immunity against federal lawsuits brought by private individuals.

This general concept was most recently reaffirmed in the Supreme Court's recent trio of federalism cases of Alden v. Maine, Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, and College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board. In order to determine whether the states' sovereign immunity had been preserved under the facts in the Kimel case, the Supreme Court had to answer two questions. First, whether Congress unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states when it enacted the ADEA, and if it did, whether Congress acted pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority.

The Supreme Court answered the first question affirmatively and held that the ADEA did contain express language evidencing Congress' intent to subject states to lawsuits in federal court and therefore abrogate theft sovereign immunity. The Court answered the second question with a resounding "no," and held that Congress lacked the authority to override the sovereign immunity of the states under both its Article I Commerce Clause powers and under Section 5 to the 14th Amendment. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Supreme Court Deals A Win and A Loss for States, Cities
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.