Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer

Background

A group of present and retired male employees of the State of Connecticut sued state officials, arguing the State’s retirement plan treated them worse because of their sex. The District Court found a Title VII violation and ordered prospective relief, but it denied retroactive benefits and attorneys’ fees as barred by state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Reasoning

The key question was whether Congress, using its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, can authorize private money-damages suits against a State to enforce federal civil-rights laws like Title VII. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s enforcement clause can limit the Eleventh Amendment’s immunity. Because Congress expressly extended Title VII to include States and authorized remedies including backpay and fees, the Court concluded those awards are constitutionally permissible and reversed the judgment that had barred the damages claim; it also affirmed that attorneys’ fees may be awarded under Title VII.

Real world impact

As a result, employees of state governments can pursue money damages for employment discrimination under Title VII when Congress has authorized such remedies under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. State governments and officials face a greater risk of backpay and fee awards when federal law so provides. This decision narrows the shield of Eleventh Amendment immunity in cases where Congress exercises its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices concurred in the judgment but gave different reasons: Justice Brennan emphasized that States surrendered certain immunity against suits enforcing enumerated powers, while Justice Stevens relied on the commerce power and the Ex parte Young doctrine in his view.