The opinion
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2000 FED App. 0118P (6th Cir.)
File Name: 00a0118p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
;
DALVAN M. COGER; JOSEPH
K. DAVIS; CAROLYN THORPE
FURR; LUCILLE GOLIGHTLY;
No. 97-5134
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,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
WILLIAM WELCH,
Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor,
v.
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
STATE OF TENNESSEE, a
1
2 Coger, et al. v. Bd. of Regents of No. 97-5134 No. 97-5134 Coger, et al. v. Bd. of Regents 3
the State of TN, et al. of the State of TN, et al.
NORWOOD, WILSON & ATCHLEY, Memphis, Tennessee,
Subdivision of the State of for Appellants. Michael E. Moore, OFFICE OF THE
Tennessee; MEMPHIS STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION,
UNIVERSITY, An Institution Nashville, Tennessee, Sheri H. Lipman, BURCH, PORTER
Operated by the State Board & JOHNSON, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellees. Seth M.
Galanter, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL
of Regents; THOMAS G.
RIGHTS DIVISION, APPELLATE SECTION, Washington,
CARPENTER, Individually and
D.C., for Intervenor. Douglas A. Hedin, LAW OFFICE OF
as President of Memphis State DOUGLAS A. HEDIN, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Thomas W.
University; VICTOR E. FEISAL, Osborne, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED
Individually and as Vice- PERSONS, Washington, D. C., Jeffrey S. Sutton, Jack W.
President of Academic Affairs Decker, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Columbus, Ohio, for Amici Curiae.
at Memphis State University,
1
Defendants-Appellees. _________________
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court. OPINION
No. 89-02374—Julia S. Gibbons, Chief District Judge. _________________
Argued: April 30, 1998 R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. In our prior opinion in
this case, Coger v. Board of Regents, 154 F.3d 296, 307 (6th
Decided and Filed: April 4, 2000 Cir. 1998), we concluded that Congress intended to abrogate
the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit by its
Before: JONES, MOORE, and COLE, Circuit Judges. 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
COUNSEL opinion, now has determined that although the ADEA does
contain a clear statement of Congress’ intent to abrogate the
ARGUED: Donald A. Donati, DONATI LAW FIRM, states’ immunity, the abrogation exceeded Congress’
Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellants. Michael E. Moore, authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 120 S. Ct. 631, 649-50
JUSTICE DIVISION, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees. (2000).
Seth M. Galanter, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL
RIGHTS DIVISION, APPELLATE SECTION, Washington, Having carefully considered the present case in light of
D.C., for Intervenor. Jeffrey S. Sutton, OFFICE OF THE Kimel, we conclude that the faculty members cannot maintain
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Amicus their ADEA suit against the University, a state employer. We
Curiae. ON BRIEF: Donald A. Donati, DONATI LAW therefore VACATE our prior judgment and AFFIRM the
FIRM, Memphis, Tennessee, Jeffrey L. Atchley, district court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ ADEA action.