Opinion ID: 3064440
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Because the ADEA is structurally and function-

Text: ally distinct from Title VII, the availability of § 1983 claims to Title VII plaintiffs is not determinative. [6] Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides an avenue for plaintiffs to assert claims for employment discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. In its substantive provisions, the ADEA mirrors Title VII, which does not deprive plaintiffs of other avenues for asserting claims of race and sex discrimination. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 584 (1978) (“In fact, the prohibitions of the ADEA were derived in haec verba from Title VII.”); Johnson v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc. (1975) (holding that Title VII is not exclusive). In its remedial provisions, however, the ADEA tracks the Fair Labor Standards Act. See Zombro, 868 F.2d at 1369. The remedial provisions of a statute are particularly significant in the preclusion inquiry. See Sea Clammers, 453 U.S. at 19-20 (“When the remedial devices provided in a particular Act are sufficiently comprehensive, they may suffice to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude the remedy of suits under § 1983.”) (emphasis added). The Mummelthie district court chose to analogize the ADEA to Title VII despite the differences in the two statutes’ remedial schemes,7 holding 7 These differences—such as the availability of compensatory and punitive damages and an emphasis on conciliation and mediation—are discussed infra. AHLMEYER v. NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER ED. 1931 that, because Title VII does not preclude actions under § 1983, neither should the ADEA. Id. at 1326-27. In important ways, however, Title VII and the ADEA do differ. While both statutes aim to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, the Supreme Court has recognized that “age, unlike race or other classifications protected by Title VII,” may be relevant to an individual’s capacity to work. Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 240 (2005). “Moreover, intentional discrimination on the basis of age has not occurred at the same levels as discrimination against those protected by Title VII.” Id. at 241. Therefore, the ADEA provides “significantly narrow[er]” coverage than Title VII.8 Id. at 233. This difference in scope is reflected in the remedies provided by the two statutory schemes. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 made available compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering and punitive damages under Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a(a)(1), (b); see generally David C. Miller, Alone in Its Field: Judicial Trend To Hold that the ADEA Preempts § 1983 in Age Discrimination in Employment Claims, 29 Stetson L. Rev. 573, 586-89 (2000) (comparing the effect of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 on the remedies available under Title VII and the ADEA). [7] Compensatory damages for pain and suffering and punitive damages are not available under the ADEA, which employs its complex enforcement scheme “to help employers 8 Ahlmeyer’s § 1983 action frames her age discrimination in employment claim as a violation of her constitutional right to equal protection. Where claims of discrimination based on race or sex are entitled to heightened scrutiny, age discrimination claims under the Constitution are subject to rational basis scrutiny. See Mass. Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312 (1976) (per curiam). Therefore, a plaintiff asserting an equal protection claim under § 1983 based on age discrimination would face serious obstacles to proving such a claim and has little to gain by circumventing the ADEA, which affords more protection in the area of age discrimination than does the federal Constitution. 1932 AHLMEYER v. NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER ED. and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment.” 29 U.S.C. § 621. Relief under the ADEA is limited to “judgments compelling employment, reinstatement, or promotion,” the recovery of unpaid minimum wages or overtime pay, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 626(b). In other words, the ADEA “was structured to facilitate and encourage compliance through an informal process of conciliation and mediation.” Zombro, 868 F.2d at 1366. Therefore, the narrower scope of the ADEA is reflected in the more limited relief Congress afforded plaintiffs. E. The fact that plaintiffs asserting age discrimination against state actors will be left without a remedy does not foreclose preclusion. If the ADEA is the exclusive remedy for age discrimination in the workplace, then plaintiffs are left without a federal forum for age discrimination claims against state actors.9 See Kimel, 528 U.S. at 82-83 (holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars ADEA claims against state actors). This seemingly contradictory outcome has made several district courts “reluctant” to find preclusion. See, e.g., Mustafa v. State of Neb. Dep’t of Correctional Servs., 196 F. Supp. 2d 945, 955-56 (D. Neb. 2002). The argument that a plaintiff should not be left remediless with respect to state actors has been squarely rejected by the Supreme Court in the related context of Ex Parte Young actions.10 See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 9 A state employee alleging age discrimination in employment is not without a forum altogether, because he can file an ADEA suit in state court. See, e.g., Douchette v. Bethel School Dist. No. 403, 818 P.2d 1362 (Wash. 1991) (affirming the court of appeals’ dismissal of the plaintiff’s discrimination claims, including a claim under the ADEA, as time-barred). 10 In Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court held individuals could, in certain circumstances, bring an action for injunctive relief against state officials directly under the Constitution without violating the Eleventh Amendment. AHLMEYER v. NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER ED. 1933 (1996). In Seminole Tribe, the Court first held the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) purporting to authorize suits in federal court against the states were invalid under the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 72-73. The Court further held the IGRA’s remedial scheme was sufficiently comprehensive to preclude the maintenance of an Ex Parte Young action against the state. Id. at 74-75. Anticipating the very argument presented by Ahlmeyer here, the Court stated as follows: Here, of course, we have found that Congress does not have authority under the Constitution to make the State suable in federal court under § 2710(d)(7) [of the IGRA]. Nevertheless, the fact that Congress chose to impose upon the State a liability that is significantly more limited than would be the liability imposed upon the state officer under Ex Parte Young strongly indicates that Congress had no wish to create the latter . . . . Nor are we free to rewrite the statutory scheme in order to approximate what we think Congress might have wanted had it known that § 2710(d)(7) was beyond its authority. If that effort is to be made, it should be made by Congress, and not by the federal courts. Id. at 75 (emphasis added). [8] With the ADEA, Congress intended to impose on the states a liability more limited than that available under § 1983. Thus, under Seminole Tribe, courts are not permitted to second-guess what Congress would have done had it known legislation authorizing suits against the states would be held invalid under the Eleventh Amendment. Instead, courts must analyze the comprehensiveness of a statute—and its corresponding preclusion of other remedies—as it was originally written. Because the ADEA provides a comprehensive remedial scheme, it should be read as precluding § 1983 actions in the area of age discrimination in employment. 1934 AHLMEYER v. NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER ED.