| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents
''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.
==Facts and result==
Employees of Florida State University 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.〔Although the ''Kimel'' decision bars state employees from suing states for money damages for age discrimination, it is still possible to sue under ''Ex parte Young'' (1908) for prospective injunctive relief. See ''State Police for Automatic Retirement Ass'n v. DiFava'', 317 F.3d 6, 12 (1st Cir. 2003); see also ''Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett'', 531 U.S. 356, 374 n.9 (2001). ''Ex parte Young'' allows state officials to be sued for injunctive relief when violating federal law.〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|