|KIMEL v. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (98-791)|
139 F.3d 1426, affirmed.
[ OConnor ]
[ Stevens ]
[ Thomas ]
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA or Act), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. III), makes it unlawful for an employer, including a State, to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual
because of such individuals age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). In these cases, three sets of plaintiffs filed suit under the Act, seeking money damages for their state employers alleged discrimination on the basis of age. In each case, the state employer moved to dismiss the suit on the basis of its Eleventh Amendment immunity. The District Court in one case granted the motion to dismiss, while in each of the remaining cases the District Court denied the motion. Appeals in the three cases were consolidated before the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which held that the ADEA does not validly abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity. In these cases, we are asked to consider whether the ADEA contains a clear statement of Congress intent to abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity and, if so, whether the ADEA is a proper exercise of Congress
constitutional authority. We conclude that the ADEA
does contain a clear statement of Congress intent to abrogate the States immunity, but that the abrogation exceeded Congress authority under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). The Act also provides several exceptions to this broad prohibition. For example, an employer may rely on age where it is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business. §623(f)(1). The Act also permits an employer to engage in conduct otherwise prohibited by §623(a)(1) if the employers action is based on reasonable factors other than age, §623(f)(1), or if the employer discharge[s] or otherwise discipline[s] an individual for good cause, §623(f)(3). Although the Acts prohibitions originally applied only to individuals at least forty years of age but less than sixty-five years of age, 81 Stat. 607, 29 U.S.C. § 631 (1964 ed., Supp. III), Congress subsequently removed the upper age limit, and the Act now covers individuals age 40 and over, 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). Any person aggrieved by an employers violation of the Act may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction for legal or equitable relief. §626(c)(1). Section 626(b) also permits aggrieved employees to enforce the Act through certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and the ADEA specifically incorporates §16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
Since its enactment, the ADEAs scope of coverage has been expanded by amendment. Of particular importance to these cases is the Acts treatment of state employers and employees. When first passed in 1967, the ADEA applied only to private employers. See 29 U.S.C. § 630(b) (1964 ed., Supp. III) (defining term employer to exclude the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, or a State or political subdivision thereof
In December 1994, Roderick MacPherson and Marvin Narz, ages 57 and 58 at the time, filed suit under the ADEA against their employer, the University of Montevallo, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. In their complaint, they alleged that the university had discriminated against them on the basis of their age, that it had retaliated against them for filing discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and that its College of Business, at which they were associate professors, employed an evaluation system that had a disparate impact on older faculty members. MacPherson and Narz sought declaratory and injunctive relief, backpay, promotions to full professor, and compensatory and punitive damages. App. 2125. The University of Montevallo moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending it was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. No party disputes the District Courts holding that the University is an instrumentality of the State of Alabama. On September 9, 1996, the District Court granted the Universitys motion. MacPherson v. University of Montevallo, Civ. Action No. 94AR2962S (ND Ala., Sept. 9, 1996), App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 98796, pp. 63a71a. The court determined that, although the ADEA contains a clear statement of Congress intent to abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity, Congress did not enact or extend the ADEA under its Fourteenth Amendment §5 enforcement power. Id., at 67a, 69a70a. The District Court therefore held that the ADEA did not abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity. Id., at 71a.
In April 1995, a group of current and former faculty and librarians of Florida State University, including J. Daniel Kimel, Jr., the named petitioner in one of todays cases, filed suit against the Florida Board of Regents in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in No. 95CV40194, 1 Record, Doc. No. 2. The complaint was subsequently amended to add as plaintiffs current and former faculty and librarians of Florida International University. App. 41. The plaintiffs, all over age 40, alleged that the Florida Board of Regents refused to require the two state universities to allocate funds to provide previously agreed upon market adjustments to the salaries of eligible university employees. The plaintiffs contended that the failure to allocate the funds violated both the ADEA and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. §760.01 et seq. (1997 and Supp. 1998), because it had a disparate impact on the base pay of employees with a longer record of service, most of whom were older employees. App. 4245. The plaintiffs sought backpay, liquidated damages, and permanent salary adjustments as relief. Id., at 46. The Florida Board of Regents moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity. On May 17, 1996, the District Court denied the motion, holding that Congress expressed its intent to abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity in the ADEA, and that the ADEA is a proper exercise of congressional authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. No. TCA 9540194MMP (ND Fla., May 17, 1996), App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 98796, pp. 57a62a.
In May 1996, Wellington Dickson filed suit against his employer, the Florida Department of Corrections, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Dickson alleged that the state employer failed to promote him because of his age and because he had filed grievances with respect to the alleged acts of age discrimination. Dickson sought injunctive relief, backpay, and compensatory and punitive damages. App. 83109. The Florida Department of Corrections moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that it was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court denied that motion on November 5, 1996, holding that Congress unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity in the ADEA, and that Congress had authority to do so under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dickson v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, No. 5:9cv207RH (ND Fla., Nov. 5, 1996), App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 98796, pp. 72a76a.
The plaintiffs in the MacPherson case, and the state defendants in the Kimel and Dickson cases, appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The United States also intervened in all three cases to defend the ADEAs abrogation of the States Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals and, in a divided panel opinion, held that the ADEA does not abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity. 139 F.3d 1426, 1433 (1998). Judge Edmondson, although stating that he believed good reason exists to doubt that the ADEA was (or could have been properly) enacted pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, id., at 1430, rested his opinion on the ADEAs lack of unmistakably clear language evidencing Congress intent to abrogate the States sovereign immunity. Ibid. He noted that the ADEA lacks any reference to the Eleventh Amendment or to the States sovereign immunity and does not contain, in one place, a plain statement that States can be sued by individuals in federal court. Id., at 14301431. Judge Cox concurred in Judge Edmondsons ultimate conclusion that the States are immune from ADEA suits brought by individuals in federal court. Id., at 1444. Judge Cox, however, chose not to address the thorny issue of Congresss intent, id., at 1445, but instead found that Congress lacks the power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity under the ADEA. Ibid. He concluded that the ADEA confers rights far more extensive than those the Fourteenth Amendment provides, id., at 1446, and that Congress did not enact the ADEA as a proportional response to any widespread violation of the elderlys constitutional rights. Id., at 1447. Chief Judge Hatchett dissented from both grounds. Id., at 1434.
We granted certiorari, 525 U.S. 1121 (1999), to resolve a conflict among the Federal Courts of Appeals on the question whether the ADEA validly abrogates the States Eleventh Amendment immunity. Compare Cooper v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 162 F.3d 770 (CA2 1998) (holding that the ADEA does validly abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity), cert. pending, No. 981524; Migneault v. Peck, 158 F.3d 1131 (CA10 1998) (same), cert. pending, No. 981178; Coger v. Board of Regents of the State of Tenn., 154 F.3d 296 (CA6 1998) (same), cert. pending, No. 98821; Keeton v. University of Nev. System, 150 F.3d 1055 (CA9 1998) (same); Scott v. University of Miss., 148 F.3d 493 (CA5 1998) (same); and Goshtasby v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Ill., 141 F.3d 761 (CA7 1998) (same), with Humenansky v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 152 F.3d 822 (CA8 1998) (holding that the ADEA does not validly abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity), cert. pending, No. 981235; and 139 F.3d 1426 (CA11 1998) (case below).
The Eleventh Amendment states:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Although todays cases concern suits brought by citizens against their own States, this Court has long
To determine whether a federal statute properly subjects States to suits by individuals, we apply a simple but stringent test: Congress may abrogate the States constitutionally secured immunity from suit in federal court only by making its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.
Respondents maintain that these statutory sections are less than unmistakably clear for two reasons. Brief for Respondents 15. First, they note that the ADEA already contains its own enforcement provision, §626(c)(1), which provides in relevant part that [a]ny person aggrieved may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of this chapter. Respondents claim that the existence of §626(c)(1) renders Congress intent to incorporate the clear statement of abrogation in §216(b), the FLSAs enforcement provision, ambiguous. The text of the ADEA forecloses respondents argument. Section 626(b) clearly states that the ADEA shall be enforced in accordance with the powers, remedies, and procedures provided in [section 216(b)] and subsection (c) of this section. §626(b) (emphasis added). In accord with that statutory language, we have explained repeatedly that §626(b) incorporates the FLSAs enforcement provisions, and that those remedial options operate together with §626(c)(1). See McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513 U.S. 352, 357 (1995) ([The ADEAs] remedial provisions incorporate by reference the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938); Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 167 (1989) ([T]he ADEA incorporates enforcement provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and provides that the ADEA shall be enforced using certain of the powers, remedies, and procedures of the FLSA (citation omitted)); Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 582 (1978) ([B]ut for those changes Congress expressly made [in the ADEA], it intended to incorporate fully the remedies and procedures of the FLSA). Respondents argument attempts to create ambiguity where, according to the statutes text and this Courts repeated interpretations thereof, there is none.
Respondents next point to the phrase court of competent jurisdiction in §216(b), and contend that it makes Congress intent to abrogate less than clear. Relying on our decision in the distinct context of a state waiver of sovereign immunity, Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax Commn, 327 U.S. 573 (1946), respondents maintain that perhaps Congress simply intended to permit an ADEA suit against a State only in those cases where the State previously has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit. We disagree. Our decision in Kennecott Copper must be read in context. The petitioner there contended that Utah had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court through a state statute that authorized taxpayers to pay their taxes under protest and
Although Justice Thomas concedes in his opinion that our cases have never required that Congress make its clear statement in a single section or in statutory provisions enacted at the same time, post, at 7, he concludes that the ADEA lacks the requisite clarity because of the sequence of events surrounding the enactment and amendment of §§216(b) and 626(b), post, at 4. Justice Thomas states that he is unwilling to assume that when Congress amended §216(b) in 1974, it recognized the consequences that amendment would have for the ADEA. Post, at 5. We respectfully disagree. The fact that Congress amended the ADEA itself in the same 1974 Act makes it more than clear that Congress understood the consequences of its actions. Indeed, Congress amended §216(b) to provide for suits against States in precisely the same Act in which it extended the ADEAs substantive requirements to the States. See 1974 Act, §6(d)(1), 88 Stat. 61 (amending §216(b)); §28(a), 88 Stat. 74 (extending ADEA to the States). Those provisions confirm for us that the effect on the ADEA of the §216(b) amendment was not mere happenstance. In any event, we have never held that Congress must speak with different gradations of clarity depending on the specific circumstances of the relevant legislation (e.g., amending incorporated provisions as opposed to enacting a statute for the first time). The clear statement inquiry focuses on what Congress did enact, not when it did so. We will not infer ambiguity from the sequence in which a clear textual statement is added to a statute.
We also disagree with Justice Thomas remaining points, see post, at 712. Although the ADEA does contain its own enforcement provision in §626(c)(1), the text of §626(b) acknowledges §626(c)(1)s existence and makes clear that the ADEA also incorporates §216(b), save as indicated otherwise in §626(b)s proviso. See §626(b) (The provisions of this chapter shall be enforced in accordance with the powers, remedies, and procedures provided in sectio[n] 216 (except for subsection (a) thereof) and subsection (c) of this section (emphasis added)). We fail to see how the interpretation suggested by Justice Thomas, under which §626(b) would carry over only those §216(b) embellishments not already provided for in §626(c)(1) except for the authorization of suits against States, see post, at 9, could be a permissible one. To accept that interpretation, for example, one would have to conclude that Congress intended to incorporate only the portion of §216(b)s third sentence that provides for collective actions, but not the part of the very same sentence that authorizes suits against States. See §216(b) (An action to recover the liability prescribed in either of the preceding sentences may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated).
Justice Thomas also concludes that §216(b) itself fails the clear statement test. Post, at 1012. As we have already explained, the presence of the word competent in §216(b) does not render that provision less than unmistakably clear. See supra, at 1011. Justice Thomas reliance on a single phrase from our decision in Employees of Dept. of Public Health and Welfare of Mo. v. Department of Public Health and Welfare of Mo., 411 U.S. 279 (1973), see post, at 11, as support for the contrary proposition is puzzling, given his separate argument with respect to §6(d)(2)(A) of the 1974 Act. Crucial to Justice Thomas argument on that front is his acknowledgement that Congress did intend in the 1974 amendments to permit FLSA plaintiffs who had been frustrated by state defendants invocation of Eleventh Amendment immunity under Employees to avail themselves of the newly amended §216(b). Post, at 5; see also post, at 1112. We agree with the implication of that statement: In response to Employees, Congress clearly intended through the newly amended §216(b) to abrogate the States sovereign immunity. In light of our conclusion that Congress unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity, we now must determine whether Congress effectuated that abrogation pursuant to a valid exercise of constitutional authority.
This is not the first time we have considered the constitutional validity of the 1974 extension of the ADEA to state and local governments. In EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 243 (1983), we held that the ADEA constitutes a valid exercise of Congress power [t]o regulate Commerce among the several States, Art. I, §8, cl. 3, and that the Act did not transgress any external restraints imposed on the commerce power by the Tenth Amendment. Because we found the ADEA valid under Congress Commerce Clause power, we concluded that it was unnecessary to determine whether the Act also could be supported by Congress power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wyoming, 460 U.S., at 243. But see id., at 259263 (Burger, C. J., dissenting). Resolution of todays cases requires us to decide that question.
In Seminole Tribe, we held that Congress lacks power under Article I to abrogate the States sovereign immunity. 517 U.S., at 7273. Even when the Constitution vests in Congress complete lawmaking authority over a particular area, the Eleventh Amendment prevents congressional authorization of suits by private parties against unconsenting States. Id., at 72. Last Term, in a series of three decisions, we reaffirmed that central holding of Seminole Tribe. See College Savings Bank, 527 U.S., at ____ (slip op., at 4); Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. ____, ____ (1999) (slip op., at 67); Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. ____, ____ (1999) (slip op., at 12). Indeed, in College Savings Bank, we rested our decision to overrule the constructive waiver rule of Parden v. Terminal R. Co. of Ala. Docks Dept., 377 U.S. 184 (1964), in part, on our Seminole Tribe holding. See College Savings Bank, supra, at ____ (slip op., at 16) (Recognizing a congressional power to exact constructive waivers of sovereign immunity through the exercise of Article I powers would also, as a practical matter, permit Congress to circumvent the antiabrogation holding of Seminole Tribe). Under our firmly established precedent then, if the ADEA rests solely on Congress Article I commerce power, the private petitioners in todays cases cannot maintain their suits against their state employers.
Justice Stevens disputes that well-established precedent again. Compare post, at 17, with Alden, supra, at ____ (slip op., at 158) (Souter, J., dissenting); College Savings Bank, 527 U.S., at ____ (slip op., at 2, n. 2) (Stevens, J., dissenting); id., at ____ (slip op., at 713) (Breyer, J., dissenting); Florida Prepaid, supra, at ____ (slip op., at 1819) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S., at 76100 (Stevens, J., dissenting); id., at 100185 (Souter, J., dissenting). In Alden, we explained that, [a]lthough the sovereign immunity of the States derives at least in part from the common-law tradition, the structure and history of the Constitution make clear that the immunity exists today by constitutional design. 527 U.S., at ____ (slip op., at 2324). For purposes of todays decision, it is sufficient to note that we have on more than one occasion explained the substantial reasons for adhering to that constitutional design. See id., at ____ (slip op., at 245); College Savings Bank, supra, at ____ (slip op., at 12, 2024); Seminole Tribe, supra, at 5455, 5973; Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 3042 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Indeed, the present dissenters refusal to accept the validity and natural import of decisions like Hans, rendered over a full century ago by this Court, makes it difficult to engage in additional meaningful debate on the place of state sovereign immunity in the Constitution. Compare Hans, 134 U.S., at 10, 1416, with post, at 56. Today we adhere to our holding in Seminole Tribe: Congress powers under Article I of the Constitution do not include the power to subject States to suit at the hands of private individuals.
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, does grant Congress the authority to abrogate the States sovereign immunity. In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), we recognized that the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at 456 (citation omitted). Since our decision in Fitzpatrick, we have reaffirmed the validity of that congressional power on numerous occasions. See, e.g., College Savings Bank, supra, at ____ (slip op., at 2); Florida Prepaid, supra, at ____ (slip op., at 78); Alden, supra, at ____ (slip op., at 4648); Seminole Tribe, supra, at 59. Accordingly, the private petitioners in these cases may maintain their ADEA suits against the States of Alabama and Florida if, and only if, the ADEA is appropriate legislation under §5.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in relevant part:
As we recognized most recently in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517 (1997), §5 is an affirmative grant of power to Congress. It is for Congress in the first instance to determin[e] whether and what legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, and its conclusions are entitled to much deference. Id., at 536 (quoting Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 651 (1966)). Congress §5 power is not confined to the enactment of legislation that merely parrots the precise wording of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, Congress power to enforce the Amendment includes the authority both to remedy and to deter violation of rights guaranteed thereunder by prohibiting a somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself forbidden by the Amendments text. 521 U.S., at 518.
Nevertheless, we have also recognized that the same language that serves as the basis for the affirmative grant of congressional power also serves to limit that power. For example, Congress cannot decree the substance of the Fourteenth Amendments restrictions on the States. It has been given the power to enforce, not the power to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation. Id., at 519 (emphases added). The ultimate interpretation and determination of the Fourteenth Amendments substantive meaning remains the province of the Judicial Branch. Id., at 536. In City of Boerne, we noted that the determination whether purportedly prophylactic legislation constitutes appropriate remedial legislation, or instead effects a substantive redefinition of the Fourteenth Amendment right at issue, is often difficult. Id., at 519520. The line between the two is a fine one. Accordingly, recognizing that Congress must have wide latitude in determining where [that line] lies, we held that [t]here must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end. Id., at 520.
In City of Boerne, we applied that congruence and proportionality test and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) was not appropriate legislation under §5. We first noted that the legislative record contained very little evidence of the unconstitutional conduct purportedly targeted by RFRAs substantive provisions. Rather, Congress had uncovered only anecdotal evidence that, standing alone, did not reveal a widespread pattern of religious discrimination in this country. Id., at 531. Second, we found that RFRA is so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior. Id., at 532.
Last Term, we again had occasion to apply the congruence and proportionality test. In Florida Prepaid, we considered the validity of the Eleventh Amendment abrogation provision in the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act (Patent Remedy Act). We held that the statute, which subjected States to patent infringement suits, was not appropriate legislation under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Patent Remedy Act failed to meet our congruence and proportionality test first because Congress identified no pattern of patent infringement by the States, let alone a pattern of constitutional violations. 527 U.S., at ____ (slip op., at 11) (emphasis added). Moreover, because it was unlikely that many of the acts of patent infringement affected by the statute had any likelihood of being unconstitutional, we concluded that the scope of the Act was out of proportion to its supposed remedial or preventive objectives. Id., at ____ (slip op., at 1819). Instead, [t]he statutes apparent and more basic aims were to provide a uniform remedy for patent infringement and to place States on the same footing as private parties under that regime. Id., at ____ (slip op., at 19). While we acknowledged that such aims may be proper congressional concerns under Article I, we found them insufficient to support an abrogation of the States Eleventh Amendment immunity after Seminole Tribe. Florida Prepaid, supra, at ____ (slip op., at 1920).
Applying the same congruence and proportionality test in these cases, we conclude that the ADEA is not appropriate legislation under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Initially, the substantive requirements the ADEA imposes on state and local governments are disproportionate to any unconstitutional conduct that conceivably could be targeted by the Act. We have considered claims of unconstitutional age discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause three times. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 (1979); Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976) (per curiam). In all three cases, we held that the age classifications at issue did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. See Gregory, supra, at 473; Bradley, supra, at 102103, n. 20, 108112; Murgia, supra, at 317. Age classifications, unlike governmental conduct based on race or gender, cannot be characterized as so seldom relevant to the achievement of any legitimate state interest that laws grounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and antipathy. Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985). Older persons, again, unlike those who suffer discrimination on the basis of race or gender, have not been subjected to a
States may discriminate on the basis of age without offending the Fourteenth Amendment if the age classification in question is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The rationality commanded by the Equal Protection Clause does not require States to match age distinctions and the legitimate interests they serve with razorlike precision. As we have explained, when conducting rational basis review we will not overturn such [government action] unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the [governments] actions were irrational. Bradley, supra, at 97. In contrast, when a State discriminates on the basis of race or gender, we require a tighter fit between the discriminatory means and the legitimate ends they serve. See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995) ([Racial] classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests); Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724 (1982) (holding that gender classifications are constitutional only if they serve
Our decisions in Murgia, Bradley, and Gregory illustrate these principles. In all three cases, we held that the States reliance on broad generalizations with respect to age did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. In Murgia, we upheld against an equal protection challenge a Massachusetts statute requiring state police officers to retire at age 50. The State justified the provision on the ground that the age classification assured the State of the physical preparedness of its officers. 427 U.S., at 314315. Although we acknowledged that Officer Murgia himself was in excellent physical health and could still perform the duties of a state police officer, we found that the statute clearly met the requirements of the Equal
Protection Clause. Id., at 311, 314317. That the State chooses not to determine fitness more precisely through individualized testing after age 50 [does not prove] that the objective of assuring physical fitness is not rationally furthered by a maximum-age limitation. Id., at 316. In Bradley, we considered an equal protection challenge to a federal statute requiring Foreign Service officers to retire at age 60. We explained: If increasing age brings with it increasing susceptibility to physical difficulties, the fact that individual Foreign Service employees may be able to perform past age 60 does not invalidate [the statute] any more than did the similar truth undercut compulsory retirement at age 50 for uniformed state police in Murgia. 440 U.S., at 108. Finally, in Gregory, we upheld a provision of the Missouri Constitution that required judges to retire at age 70. Noting that the Missouri provision was based on a generalization about the effect of old age on the ability of individuals to serve as judges, we acknowledged that [i]t is far from true that all judges suffer significant deterioration in performance at age 70, [i]t is probably not true that most do, and [i]t may not be true at all. 501 U.S., at 473. Nevertheless, because Missouris age classification was subject only to rational basis review, we held that the States reliance on such imperfect generalizations was entirely proper under the Equal Protection Clause. Ibid. These decisions thus demonstrate that the constitutionality of state classifications on the basis of age cannot be determined on a person-by-person basis. Our Constitution permits States to draw lines on the basis of age when they have a rational basis for doing so at a class-based level, even if it is probably not true that those reasons are valid in the majority of cases.
Judged against the backdrop of our equal protection jurisprudence, it is clear that the ADEA is so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior. City of Boerne, 521 U.S., at 532. The Act, through its broad restriction on the use of age as a discriminating factor, prohibits substantially more state employment decisions and practices than would likely be held unconstitutional under the applicable equal protection, rational basis standard. The ADEA makes unlawful, in the employment context, all discriminat[ion] against any individual because of such individuals age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). Petitioners, relying on the Acts exceptions, dispute the extent to which the ADEA erects protections beyond the Constitutions requirements. They contend that the Acts prohibition, considered together with its exceptions, applies only to arbitrary age discrimination, which in the majority of cases corresponds to conduct that violates the Equal Protection Clause. We disagree.
Petitioners stake their claim on §623(f)(1). That section permits employers to rely on age when it is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business. Petitioners reliance on the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense is misplaced. Our interpretation of §623(f)(1) in Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell, 472 U.S. 400 (1985), conclusively demonstrates that the defense is a far cry from the rational basis standard we apply to age discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. The petitioner in that case maintained that, pursuant to the BFOQ defense, employers must be permitted to rely on age when such reliance has a rational basis in fact. Id., at 417. We rejected that argument, explaining that [t]he BFOQ standard adopted in the statute is one of reasonable necessity, not reasonableness, id., at 419, and that the ADEA standard and the rational basis test are significantly different, id., at 421.
Under the ADEA, even with its BFOQ defense, the States use of age is prima facie unlawful. See 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1); Western Air Lines, 472 U.S., at 422 (Under the Act, employers are to evaluate employees
on their merits and not their age). Application of the Act therefore starts with a presumption in favor of requiring the employer to make an individualized determination. See ibid. In Western Air Lines, we concluded that the BFOQ defense, which shifts the focus from the merits of the individual employee to the necessity for the age classification as a whole, is
Petitioners also place some reliance on the next clause in §623(f)(1), which permits employers to engage in conduct otherwise prohibited by the Act where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age. This exception confirms, however, rather than disproves, the conclusion that the ADEAs protection extends beyond the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause. The exception simply makes clear that [t]he employer cannot rely on age as a proxy for an employees remaining characteristics, such as productivity, but must instead focus on those factors directly. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 611 (1993). Under the Constitution, in contrast, States may rely on age as a proxy for other characteristics. See Gregory, 501 U.S., at 473 (generalization about ability to serve as judges at age 70); Bradley, 440 U.S., at 108109, 112 (generalization about ability to serve as Foreign Service officer at age 60); Murgia, 427 U.S., at 314317 (generalization about ability to serve as state police officer at age 50). Section 623(f)(1), then, merely confirms that Congress, through the ADEA, has effectively elevated the standard for analyzing age discrimination to heightened scrutiny.
That the ADEA prohibits very little conduct likely to be held unconstitutional, while significant, does not alone provide the answer to our §5 inquiry. Difficult and intractable problems often require powerful remedies, and we have never held that §5 precludes Congress from enacting reasonably prophylactic legislation. Our task is to determine whether the ADEA is in fact just such an appropriate remedy or, instead, merely an attempt to substantively redefine the States legal obligations with respect to age discrimination. One means by which we have made such a determination in the past is by examining the legislative record containing the reasons for Congress action. See, e.g., Florida Prepaid, 527 U.S., at ________ (slip op., at 1118); City of Boerne, 521 U.S., at 530531. The appropriateness of remedial measures must be considered in light of the evil presented. Strong measures appropriate to address one harm may be an unwarranted response to another, lesser one. Id., at 530 (citing South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966)).
Our examination of the ADEAs legislative record confirms that Congress 1974 extension of the Act to the States was an unwarranted response to a perhaps inconsequential problem. Congress never identified any pattern of age discrimination by the States, much less any discrimination whatsoever that rose to the level of constitutional violation. The evidence compiled by petitioners to demonstrate such attention by Congress to age discrimination by the States falls well short of the mark. That evidence consists almost entirely of isolated sentences clipped from floor debates and legislative reports. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 93846, p. 112 (1974); S. Rep. No. 93690, p. 56 (1974); H. R. Rep. No. 93913, pp. 4041 (1974); S. Rep. No. 93300, p. 57 (1973); Senate Special Committee on Aging, Improving the Age Discrimination Law, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., 14 (Comm. Print 1973); 113 Cong. Rec. 34742 (1967) (remarks of Sen. Steiger); id., at 34749 (remarks of Rep. Donohue); 110 Cong. Rec. 13490 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Smathers); id., at 9912 (remarks of Sen. Sparkman); id., at 2596 (remarks of Rep. Beckworth). The statements of Senator Bentsen on the floor of the Senate are indicative of the strength of the evidence relied on by petitioners. See, e.g., 118 Cong. Rec. 24397 (1972) (stating that there is ample evidence that age discrimination is broadly practiced in government employment, but relying on newspaper articles about federal employees); id., at 7745 (Letters from my own State have revealed that State and local governments have also been guilty of discrimination toward older employees); ibid. ([T]here are strong indications that the hiring and firing practices of governmental units discriminate against the elderly ).
Petitioners place additional reliance on Congress consideration of a 1966 report prepared by the State of California on age discrimination in its public agencies. See Hearings on H. R. 3651 et al. before the Subcommittee on Labor of the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 161201 (1967) (Hearings) (reprinting State of California, Citizens Advisory Committee on Aging, Age Discrimination in Public Agencies (1966)). Like the assorted sentences petitioners cobble together from a decades worth of congressional reports and floor debates, the California study does not indicate that the State had engaged in any unconstitutional age discrimination. In fact, the report stated that the majority of the age limits uncovered in the state survey applied in the law enforcement and firefighting occupations. Hearings 168. Those age limits were not only permitted under California law at the time, see ibid., but are also currently permitted under the ADEA. See 5 U.S.C. § 3307(d), (e); 29 U.S.C. § 623(j) (1994 ed., Supp. III). Even if the California report had uncovered a pattern of unconstitutional age discrimination in the States public agencies at the time, it nevertheless would have been insufficient to support Congress 1974 extension of the ADEA to every State of the Union. The report simply does not constitute evidence that [unconstitutional age discrimination] had become a problem of national import. Florida Prepaid, supra, at ____ (slip op., at 13).
Finally, the United States argument that Congress found substantial age discrimination in the private sector, see Brief for United States 38, is beside the point. Congress made no such findings with respect to the States. Although we also have doubts whether the findings Congress did make with respect to the private sector could be extrapolated to support a finding of unconstitutional age discrimination in the public sector, it is sufficient for these cases to note that Congress failed to identify a widespread pattern of age discrimination by the States. See Florida Prepaid, 527 U.S., at ___ (slip op., at 11).
A review of the ADEAs legislative record as a whole, then, reveals that Congress had virtually no reason to believe that state and local governments were unconstitutionally discriminating against their employees on the basis of age. Although that lack of support is not determinative of the §5 inquiry, id., at ____ (slip op., at 1718); City of Boerne, 521 U.S., at 531532, Congress failure to uncover any significant pattern of unconstitutional discrimination here confirms that Congress had no reason to believe that broad prophylactic legislation was necessary in this field. In light of the indiscriminate scope of the Acts substantive requirements, and the lack of evidence of widespread and unconstitutional age discrimination by the States, we hold that the ADEA is not a valid exercise of Congress power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ADEAs purported abrogation of the States sovereign immunity is accordingly invalid.
Our decision today does not signal the end of the line for employees who find themselves subject to age discrimination at the hands of their state employers. We hold only that, in the ADEA, Congress did not validly abrogate the States sovereign immunity to suits by private individuals. State employees are protected by state age discrimination statutes, and may recover money damages from their state employers, in almost every State of the Union.1 Those avenues of relief remain available today, just as they were before this decision.
Because the ADEA does not validly abrogate the States sovereign immunity, however, the present suits must be dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
1. See Alaska Stat. Ann. §18.80.010 et seq. (1998); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §411401 et seq. (1999); Ark. Code Ann. §§213201, 213203 (1996); Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §12900 et seq. (West 1992 and Supp. 1999); Colo. Rev. Stat. §2434301 et seq. (1998); Conn. Gen. Stat. §46a51 et seq. (1999); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 19, §710 et seq. (Supp. 1998); Fla. Stat. Ann. §§112.044, 760.01 et seq. (1997 and Supp. 1998); Ga. Code Ann. §451921 et seq. (1990 and Supp. 1996); Haw. Rev. Stat. §3781 et seq. (1993 and Cum. Supp. 1998); Idaho Code §675901 et seq. (1995 and Supp. 1999); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 775, §5/1101 et seq. (1998); Ind. Code §22921 et seq. (1993); Iowa Code §216.1 et seq. (1994 and Supp. 1999); Kan. Stat. Ann. §441111 et seq. (1993 and Cum. Supp. 1998); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §344.010 et seq. (Michie 1997 and Supp. 1998); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23:311 et seq. (West 1998); id., §51:2231 et seq. (West Supp. 1999); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 5, §4551 et seq. (19981999 Supp.); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 49B, §1 et seq. (1998 and Supp. 1999); Mass. Gen. Laws §151:1 et seq. (West 1997 and Supp. 1998); Mich. Comp. Laws §37.2101 et seq. (West 1985 and Supp. 1999); Minn. Stat. §363.01 et seq. (1991 and Supp. 1999); Miss. Code Ann. §259149 (1991); Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010 et seq. (1994 and Cum. Supp. 1998); Mont. Code Ann. §491101 et seq. (1997); Neb. Rev. Stat. §481001 et seq. (1998); Nev. Rev. Stat. §613.310 et seq. (1995); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §354A:1 et seq. (1995 and Supp. 1998); N. J. Stat. Ann. §§10:31, 10:51 et seq. (West 1993 and Supp. 1999); N. M. Stat. Ann. §2811 et seq. (1996); N. Y. Exec. Law §290 et seq. (McKinney 1993 and Supp. 1999); N. C. Gen. Stat. §12616 et seq. (1999); N. D. Cent. Code §1402.401 et seq. (1997 and Supp. 1999); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4112.01 et seq. (1998); Okla. Stat., Tit. 25, §1101 et seq. (1991 and Supp. 1999); Ore. Rev. Stat. §659.010 et seq. (1997); 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. §951 et seq. (1991 and Supp. 1999); R. I. Gen. Laws §2851 et seq. (1995 and Supp. 1997); S. C. Code Ann. §11310 et seq. (1986 and Cum. Supp. 1998); Tenn. Code Ann. §421101 et seq. (1998); Tex. Lab. Code Ann. §21.001 et seq. (1996 and Supp. 1999); Utah Code Ann. §34A5101 et seq. (Supp. 1999); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21, §495 et seq. (1987 and Supp. 1999); Va. Code Ann. §2.1116.10 et seq. (1995 and Supp. 1999); Wash. Rev. Code §49.60.010 et seq. (1994); W. Va. Code §5111 et seq. (1999); Wis. Stat. Ann. §111.01 et seq. (West 1997 and Supp. 1998); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §279101 et seq. (1999).