Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-01471/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-01471-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shirley Davis
Plaintiff
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

SHIRLEY DAVIS PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 4:05CV01471GH

UAMS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed this action pro se alleging that defendants discriminated against

her on the basis of her age. In particular, plaintiff, who was employed as a Family Support

paraprofessional with Arkansas Cares, a program at the Psychiatry Department at

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (“UAMS”), alleges that she was treated

differently with regard to terms and conditions of employment than younger employees.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. Arkansas Cares is a division of the

Psychiatry Department at UAMS and is funded and managed solely by UAMS. UAMS

is part of the University of Arkansas, an institution of higher education established under

Arkansas law. It does not have the capacity to sue or be sued. See Assaad-Faltas v.

Univ. Of Arkansas for Med. Sciences, 708 F. Supp. 1026, 1029 (E. D. Ark. 1989), aff’d,

902 F.2d 1572 (8th Cir. 1990). More importantly, it is well settled that plaintiff’s claim under

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ ADEA”) claim is barred by Eleventh

Amendment immunity. See Becker v. Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha, 191 F. 3d 904, 908-

909 (8th Cir. 1999); Humenansky v. Regents of Univ. of Minnesota, 152 F. 3d 822 (8th Cir.

1998). The Supreme Court subsequently held in Kimel v. Florida Bd of Regents, 528 U.S.

62, 91 (2000) held that the ADEA did not validly abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment

immunity. Therefore, suits brought under the Act against state employers are barred. 

 Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is hereby

dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of Order denying appointment of counsel

Case 4:05-cv-01471-GH Document 22 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 2
is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of January, 2006.

__________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-01471-GH Document 22 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 2