FACTS: Suing under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Daniel Kimel, a professor at a university in the State of Florida felt as though he and a few others were violated when their jobs were terminated and promise or not sed pay increases were not given.
CENTRAL QUESTION: The central question in this case is whether or not the Age Discrimination in Employment Act allows for abrogation of a States immunity from lawsuits by individuals under the Eleventh Amendment. .
OUTCOME: Ruling in a five to four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Board of Regents in Florida was indeed immune from individual lawsuits stemming from the Discrimination in Employment Act.
COURTS REASONING: The court came upon this decision based on the fact that all people will eventually become old. What this means is that unlike cases regarding race or gender, discrimination cannot be held accountable. As precedent, the Court used the case of Florida v. College Savings Bank (1999) where it was decided that individuals could not bring forth suit to the State. .
DISSENTING OPINION: The dissenting opinion of the Court argued that the Constitution does not state that individuals cannot bring forth a suit against a State. .
ANALYSIS: This case was not decided correctly. It is wrong not to allow a person to bring forth suit when they believe injustice has been brought upon them. In this particular situation, it is ridiculous to allow the government to hold back an individual from seeking justice even when faced with being snubbed by the state. .
