This case involved Margaret Ward, who was appointed director of the Governor?s Office by the incoming Governor of Alaska, and Lynda Jones, a special assistant.?? Four years later they were terminated allegedly for supporting his election rival.? ?Ward and Jones alleged the termination? was ?because? of ?gender discrimination and opposing gender discrimination.?? The EEOC proceeded with the case under the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (?GERA?), which wiped out the existing Title VII exemption for members of an elected the incident, the union filed a grievance. ?The union?s attorney concluded that the company would win the grievance before an arbitrator because no grievance? was? filed? on? the? first? incident.?? ?The union? did? not? take? the? second ?grievance ?any further. ?The plaintiff then sued the union for sex discrimination ?and ?breach ?of ?the ?duty ?of ?fair officials?? ?staff.???? ?The? ?Governor? ?argued? ?11 Amendment immunity based on a 2002 Supreme Court case holding that the Amendment applied to federal agency adjudications of private complaints against states. ?The EEOC disagreed. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the Governor. The? ?majority? ?held? ?there? ?were? ?insufficient the representation. ?She argued that the union pursued men?s grievances more zealously than women?s. In a bench trial, the district court ruled in her favor legislative? ?findings? ?in? ?1991? ?to? ?vitiate? ?11 Amendment immunity and that the original 1972 findings to justify extension of Title VII under ?the Ninth Circuit affirmed.? ?The court ruled the 14 Amendment to the states were stale by that the Union?s failure to file a grievance after the first incident was an arbitrary action and a breach. Judge Paez dissented.? ?He reasoned that because GERA was an amendment to a statute of? ?its? ?duty.????? ?The? ?court? ?affirmed? ?the? ?sex that? ?had? ?validly? ?waived? ?11 Amendment discrimination finding against the union based on comparative ?evidence ?of ?how ?the ?grievances? of two male and one other female employees were handled.?? The court ruled that this was sufficient evidence of comparative (rather than statistical) evidence of discrimination because the employees were similarly situated in all material respects to the plaintiff.? ?Beck v. UFCW Local 99, 506 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2007). immunity, ?Congress ?clearly ?intended ?to ?vitiate 11th? Amendment immunity and made sufficient findings to do so. ?Alaska v. EEOC, 508 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2007) (Noonan, Wallace; Paez).
Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 Barred by 11th Amendment.
Dec 18, 2007