Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Federal Courts

427 U.S. 445 (1976)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal CourtsSection 5 abrogationEleventh AmendmentTitle VIISection 5Fourteenth Amendmentstate sovereign immunityabrogation

Facts

Present and retired male employees of Connecticut challenged provisions of the State's retirement benefit plan as sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. Title VII had been amended in 1972 to include state governments as employers and to preserve private suits by persons aggrieved by public employers. The district court found the retirement act violated Title VII and awarded prospective injunctive relief against state officials. The employees also sought retroactive retirement benefits and attorneys' fees, but those monetary awards were denied as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Issue

Whether Congress, acting under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, may authorize federal courts to award money damages and attorneys' fees in a private Title VII action against a State despite the Eleventh Amendment. More specifically, the question was whether Edelman v. Jordan foreclosed Congress from authorizing such relief against a State treasury.

Rule

The Eleventh Amendment and the state sovereignty it embodies are necessarily limited by § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. When Congress acts pursuant to § 5 to enforce the substantive guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, it may provide by appropriate legislation for private suits against States or state officials, including remedies that would be constitutionally impermissible in other contexts.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts the Equal Public Service Act to enforce the Equal Protection Clause and expressly defines "employer" to include state governments. The statute authorizes private suits in federal court for backpay against any covered employer that intentionally discriminates in promotion decisions. Nora Vega, an employee of the State of Ohio, sues for unpaid wages caused by sex discrimination.

Ohio moves to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds because the requested backpay would be paid from the state treasury. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that the Eleventh Amendment and the sovereignty it embodies are limited by § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Where Congress clearly authorizes suit against States and acts pursuant to § 5 to enforce Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, it may permit private suits for retroactive monetary relief payable from the state treasury.