|
|
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976)
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer No. 75-251 Argued April 221, 1976 Decided June 28, 1976 * 427 U.S. 445
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Present and retired male employees of the State of Connecticut (petitioners in No. 75-251) brought this class action alleging, inter alia, that certain provisions of the State’s statutory retirement benefit plan discriminated against them because of their sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, as amended, extends coverage to the States as employers. The District Court ruled in their favor and entered prospective injunctive relief against respondent state officials. But the court denied petitioners’ request for an award of retroactive retirement benefits as compensation for losses caused by the State’s discrimination, as well as "a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs," as provided in Title VII, holding that both would constitute recovery of money damages from the State’s treasury, and were thus precluded by the Eleventh Amendment and by this Court’s decision in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, where the District Court’s award for welfare benefits wrongfully withheld was held to violate that Amendment, there being no authorization in the Social Security Act for a citizen to sue a State. The Court of Appeals reversed in the matter of attorneys’ fees, the award of which was deemed to have only an "ancillary effect" on the state treasury of the sort permitted by Edelman, but otherwise affirmed.
Held:
1. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar a backpay award to petitioners in No. 75-251, since that Amendment and the principle of state sovereignty that it embodies are limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants Congress authority to enforce "by appropriate legislation" the substantive provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which themselves embody significant limitations on state authority. Congress, in determining what legislation is appropriate for enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, may, as it has done in Title VII, provide for suits against States that are constitutionally impermissible in other contexts. The "threshold fact of congressional authorization" for a citizen to sue his state employer, which was absent in Edelman, supra, is thus present here. Pp. 451-456.
2. Congress’ exercise of power in allowing reasonable attorneys’ fees is similarly not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Pp. 456-457.
519 F.2d 559, affirmed in part, reversed in part.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C J., and STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., post, p. 457, and STEVENS, J., post, p. 458, filed opinions concurring in the judgment.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976) in 427 U.S. 445 427 U.S. 446–427 U.S. 447. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2JJCTW6LIJSP6T2.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), in 427 U.S. 445, pp. 427 U.S. 446–427 U.S. 447. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2JJCTW6LIJSP6T2.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976). cited in 1976, 427 U.S. 445, pp.427 U.S. 446–427 U.S. 447. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2JJCTW6LIJSP6T2.
|