Court Opinion

ID: 9457648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:28:33.343045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:26.655602
License: Public Domain

STEPHENSON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) .
I join the dissent, but I-add a comment in order to make my position unmistakably clear.
I read Parden v. Terminal Railway of Alabama, supra, as authority for the proposition that a State is amenable to private suit in a federal forum under certain carefully defined circumstances. Accordingly, I cannot agree, in view of the still live holding of the Supreme Court in Parden, that this complaint is deficient as a matter of law. I think, contrarily, that it alleges facts which, if true, provide a basis upon which some relief conceivably could be granted. In this connection I note that the Court specifically recognized that “one or more of the remedies the Act provides might not be available when a State is the employer-defendant.” Maryland v. Wirtz, supra, p. 200 of 392 U.S., p. 2026 of 88 S.Ct.