Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had gone beyond its constitutional authority when it amended the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to include states and their subdivisions, such as cities and school districts. This decision, with a 5-4 majority, adds to a series of cases in recent years where states have successfully challenged Congress’ power to revoke their immunity from lawsuits under the 11th Amendment of the Constitution.
For example, in 1995, the court declared that Congress did not have the authority under the Constitution’s commerce clause to make it a federal offense to possess a firearm near a school.
In the recent ruling on Jan. 11 in the case of Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, the court determined that Congress did not have the authority under the 14th Amendment when it extended the ADEA to cover states and their subdivisions in 1974. The ADEA allows workers aged 40 or older to sue their employers in federal court if they believe they have experienced age-based discrimination.
This particular case involved 36 faculty members and librarians from Florida State University and Florida International University, two professors from the University of Montevallo in Alabama, and a state corrections officer from Florida, all of whom had sued their state employers alleging age discrimination under the federal statute. The National Education Association and its state affiliate, the Florida Teaching Profession-NEA, supported the plaintiffs in the Florida university case and urged the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
However, the Supreme Court upheld the court of appeals’ decision. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority, stated that the requirements imposed by the ADEA on state and local governments were disproportionate to any unconstitutional conduct that the act could potentially target. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas joined her in the majority.
Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent, accused the majority of "judicial activism." He argued that federal rules against workplace discrimination could be enforced against both public and private employers, and Congress’ power to legislate in that area was not limited by the 11th Amendment or sovereign immunity. Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer joined him in the dissent.
While the impact of this decision on age-discrimination claims in public education may be limited, Justice O’Connor pointed out that state employees are protected by state age-discrimination statutes in almost every state, allowing them to seek money damages from their state employers. Robert H. Chanin, the general counsel of the NEA, acknowledged that there are other remedies available, but expressed concern that one of the most effective remedies had been taken away.
It is not yet clear whether all K-12 districts are now immune from lawsuits under the statute. This is because federal courts have taken different positions on whether political subdivisions like cities and school districts are considered part of the state and therefore covered by 11th Amendment immunity. According to Mr. Chanin, there is a patchwork of rulings on this matter. Julie Underwood, the general counsel of the National School Boards Association, shared that the ruling would be disseminated to the organization’s members nationwide, though she cautioned districts against using it as an invitation to discriminate based on age. She added that most states already have their own statutes covering age discrimination and that ADEA claims involving school districts are relatively rare based on anecdotal evidence.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling has highlighted the limits of Congress’ authority in extending the ADEA to cover states and their subdivisions. While it may have an impact on age-discrimination claims, there are still state statutes and remedies available, and the application of the ruling to all K-12 districts remains uncertain.
The court referenced three significant education law cases from the U.S. Supreme Court while making their decision. In the 1923 case of Meyer v. Nebraska, the court invalidated a state law that prohibited the teaching of foreign languages in schools. In the 1925 case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the court struck down a state law that banned parents from enrolling their children in private schools. Finally, in the 1972 case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, the court affirmed the rights of Amish parents to prevent their children from attending secondary school.
Mark D. Olson, the Troxels’ attorney, argued that although these rulings supported parental rights, they also addressed other important constitutional issues, such as the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom. He emphasized that the current case before the high court had a different context and that the state supreme court had given too much consideration solely to parental wishes when determining whether children should be exposed to specific individuals or ideas.
During the oral arguments, Mr. Olson briefly mentioned this standpoint and warned that upholding the Washington Supreme Court’s decision could potentially allow parents to have full control over what their children learn in school. A ruling on Troxel v. Glanville (No. 99-138) is anticipated to be announced this summer.
