Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 1069 (5th Cir.1981). In Sessions, the Fifth Circuit barred a plaintiffs Section 1981 employment discrimination action against a state hospital. The court ruled that the hospital was an arm of the state, and that Section 1981 did not abrogate the state’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity: “[u]nlike Title VII, Section 1981 contains no congressional waiver of the state’s eleventh amendment immunity.” Id. The facts in the instant case do not present a distinguishable situation. The Office of the Attorney General is an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity. See Tex. Const, art. IV, § 22. Therefore, the court is without jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs Section 1981 claim against the state of Texas. See also Loya v. Tex. Dep’t of Corrections, 878 F.2d 860, 861-862 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). While conceding that Defendant is immune from 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the department of corrections was entitled to eleventh amendment immunity from suit under section 1981 (B) holding that the eleventh amendment applies in  1981 litigation (C) holding that pennsylvanias judicial districts are entitled to immunity from suit under the eleventh amendment (D) recognizing that claims against a state under  1981 are barred by the eleventh amendment (E) recognizing that section 1981 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment
Output (English): holding that pennsylvanias judicial districts are entitled to immunity from suit under the eleventh amendment