The opinion of the court was delivered by: McAVOY, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM — DECISION & ORDER
Plaintiff Dr. Janice W. Anderson commenced the instant action
against Defendants claiming violations of the Equal Pay Act,
29 U.S.C. § 206(d) ("EPA"). Defendants previously moved pursuant to
FED. R. CIV. P. 56 seeking, among other things, dismissal of the
EPA claim on the ground that, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment,
Defendants were immune from suit in federal court. On December 8,
1997, the Court rendered a decision from the bench finding, among
other things, that the EPA abrogated the states' Eleventh
Amendment immunity. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed. See
Anderson v. State Univ. of New York, 169 F.3d 117 (2d Cir.
1999), cert. granted and judgment vacated, ___ U.S. ___, 120
S.Ct. 929, 145 L.Ed.2d 807 (2000). The Supreme Court granted
certiorari, and vacated and remanded the Second Circuit's
opinion for reconsideration in light of its decision in Kimel v.
Florida Bd. of Regents, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed.2d
522 (2000). The Second Circuit, in turn, remanded the matter back
to this Court for reconsideration in light of Kimel, Florida
Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 627, 119 S.Ct.
2199, 144 L.Ed.2d 575 (1999); Kilcullen v. New York State Dep't
of Labor, 205 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2000); and Muller v. Costello,
187 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 1999). Presently before the Court is
Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment on the ground
that the Eleventh Amendment precludes the instant EPA claim.
The Court will not now restate the underlying facts as they are
not relevant to the narrow legal issue currently presented and
they were fully set forth in the Second Circuit's opinion,
familiarity with which is assumed. See Anderson, 169 F.3d 117.
II. Whether the EPA Abrogated the State's Eleventh Immunity
The sole issue presented is whether the EPA abrogated the
states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.
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.
U.S. CONST. amend. XI. Although the plain language of the
Eleventh Amendment does not speak to federal question
jurisdiction, it has been extended to cover all suits against the
states regardless of their foundation. See Alden v. Maine,
527 U.S. 706, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 2253-54, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999);
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ.
Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 2232 n. 5, 144 L.Ed.2d 605
(1999); Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261,
117 S.Ct. 2028, 2033, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997); Seminole Tribe of
Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1130, 134
L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). Thus, absent any exception to the states'
Eleventh Amendment immunity, litigants may not use the federal
courts to sue the states. See id.
It is undisputed that the State of New York did not waive its
Eleventh Amendment immunity for actions commenced under the EPA.
See Anderson, 169 F.3d at 119. Thus, New York is entitled to
Eleventh Amendment immunity unless: (1) Congress unequivocally
expressed its intent to abrogate that immunity; and (2) if it
did, Congress acted pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional
authority. See Kimel, 120 S.Ct. at 640.
A. Whether Congress Unequivocally Expressed Its Intent to
Abrogate the State's Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Defendant concedes that Congress intended to abrogate the
States' sovereign immunity from suit when it extended the
coverage of the EPA in 1974. See Def. Mem. of Law, at 11.
Moreover, the legislative history supports the notion that
Congress intended to subject states to suit in federal courts to
enforce their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").*fn1 See H.R.Rep. No. 93-913, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess.
41, reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2811, 2850 ("The committee
also acted . . . to make clear the right of individuals employed
by state . . . governments . . . to bring private actions to
enforce their rights. . . . This amendment is necessitated by the
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in [Employees of Dept. of
Public Health and Welfare, Missouri v. Dept. of Public Health and
Welfare, Missouri, 411 U.S. 279, 93 S.Ct. 1614, 36 L.Ed.2d 251
(1973)] which held that Congress in extending coverage under the
1966 amendments to school and hospital employees in state and
local governments did not explicitly provide the individual a
right of action in the Federal courts"). Accordingly, the Court
finds that Congress intended to abrogate the states' Eleventh
Amendment immunity for suits alleging violations of the EPA. See
Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 67 (2d Cir. 2000); see also
Anderson, 169 F.3d at 119; Close v. New York, 125 F.3d 31 (2d
Cir. 1997); 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
B. Whether Congress Acted Pursuant to a Valid Grant of
The next question is whether, in deciding to subject the states
to suit in federal courts, Congress acted pursuant to a valid
grant of constitutional authority. Congress may not abrogate a
state's Eleventh Amendment immunity under its Article I powers.
See Kimel, 120 S.Ct. at 643-44. "Section 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment [`§ 5'], however, does grant Congress the authority to
abrogate the States' sovereign immunity." Id. at 644.
"Accordingly, [Plaintiff] . . . may maintain [her ...