Opinion ID: 775824
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Express Congressional Intent to Abrogate

Text: 17 Both Hibbs and the United States argue that the district court erred in finding that the FMLA does not contain a sufficiently clear expression of congressional intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity. We agree that the district court erred. 18 In Kimel, the Supreme Court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.§§§§ 621-634, clearly expressed congressional intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity, because the ADEA incorporates by reference an enforcement provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§§§ 201-219, that clearly provides for suits by individuals against states. Kimel, 528 U.S. at 73-74. The FLSA provision authorizes suits by employees for legal and equitable relief, including back pay and reinstatement, against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction. 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b). As the Court emphasized,public agency is defined as including both the government of a State or political subdivision thereof and any agency of . . . a State, or a political subdivision of a State. Id.§§ 203(x); see Kimel, 528 U.S. at 74. The Court found that, read together,§§ 216(b) and §§ 203(x) clearly express congressional intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity from suits by individuals. Kimel, 528 U.S. at 74. 19 The enforcement provisions of the FMLA use language that is identical to the relevant language of the FLSA. The FMLA authorizes suits by employees against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction. 29 U.S.C. §§ 2617(a)(2). The FMLA's definition of employer includes any`public agency' as defined in section 203(x) of this title. Id. §§ 2611(4)(A)(iii). The Court's decision in Kimel therefore compels the conclusion that the FMLA includes a sufficiently clear expression of congressional intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity. Every circuit that has addressed this question has agreed. Chittister, 226 F.3d at 228; Sims, 219 F.3d at 562; Hale, 219 F.3d at 67. 20 Thus, the district court erred in concluding that the FMLA does not contain a sufficiently clear expression of congressional intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity.