Elisa E. Kreiger v. PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL On Appeal from the United States…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-3937
ELISA E. KREIGER,
Appellant
v.
PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Civil Action No. 00-cv-02094
Honorable J. Andrew Smyser, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 12, 2002
Before: SCIRICA and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges, and FULLAM , District Judge*
(Filed: July 25, 2002)
*Honorable John P. Fullam, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Appellant sued her former employer, the Pennsylvania Office of the
Attorney General, for violating her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”),
29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., and for causing her emotional distress by terminating her
employment. The magistrate judge to whom the case was assigned with the consent of
the parties granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, because the Office of Attorney
General is an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 71 P.S. § 732-201, and is
immune from suit in federal court by reason of the Eleventh Amendment of the United
States Constitution. This appeal followed.
It is clear that the magistrate judge was correct. The United States Supreme
Court has squarely held that the ADA did not validly abrogate the Eleventh Amendment
immunity of states and their agencies. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v.
Garrett, 521 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 55 (2001). See also, Lavia v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, 224 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2000). Plaintiff contends that the Garrett decision is
“unconstitutional” and should be reconsidered. Needless to say, this court has no
authority to overrule a decision of the United States Supreme Court.
Appellant concedes that her claim under FM LA is barred by the Eleventh

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Amendment, as this court decided in Chittister v. Department of Community & Econ.
Development, 226 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff further argues that she should be permitted to pursue claims for
equitable relief. This, too, is an erroneous view of the law. The Eleventh Amendment
bars claims against state agencies “regardless of the nature of the relief sought.”
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); see also
Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146
(1993).
The judgment appealed from will be affirmed.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
District Judge

-- 3 of 3 --