Skip to main content

Arnett v. California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)

9th CircuitMarch 16, 2000No. No. 98-15574Cited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Fernandez, McKeown, Weiner
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, which addressed whether the ADEA abrogates state Eleventh Amendment immunity.

What This Ruling Means

**Arnett v. California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)** This case involved an age discrimination lawsuit against the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). The employee claimed PERS discriminated against them based on their age, violating federal anti-discrimination laws. However, the lower court dismissed the case entirely without considering the merits of the discrimination claims. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal and sent the case back to the lower court for proper review. The appeals court determined that the dismissal was premature and that the case needed to be reconsidered in light of a recent Supreme Court decision called Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents. This Supreme Court case clarified important rules about when employees can sue state government employers for age discrimination under federal law. **What this means for workers:** This decision is significant because it confirms that government employees have the right to pursue age discrimination claims against their state employers in federal court. The ruling demonstrates that courts must carefully examine whether state agencies can claim immunity from federal anti-discrimination lawsuits, rather than automatically dismissing such cases. This helps protect older workers' rights to challenge discriminatory treatment.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.