Dalvan M. COGER; Joseph K. Davis; Carolyn Thorpe Furr; Lucille Golightly; Thomas M. Hughes; Janie S. Knight; Chales E. Long, Jr.; Harry Richard Mahood; Ramona Madson Mahood; Robert No. Marshall; Betty Hull Owen; June Rose Richie; Steve Scesa; 97-5134 Charles R. Schroeder; Robert A. Snyder; Bob J. Tucker; Sharon L. Van Oteghen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, William Welch, Plaintiff, United States of America, Intervenor, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, a Subdivision of the State of Tennessee; Memphis State University, An Institution Operated by the State Board of Regents; Thomas G. Carpenter, Individually and as President of Memphis State University; Victor E. Feisal, Individually and as Vice-President of Academic Affairs at Memphis State University, Defendants-Appellees, 209 F.3d 485

OPINION COLE, Circuit Judge. In our prior opinion in this case, Coger v. Board of Regents, 154 F.3d 296, 307 (6th Cir.1998), we concluded that Congress intended to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit by its enactment of the 1974 amendments to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and that it had the authority to do so pursuant to

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion, now has determined that although the ADEA does contain a clear statement of Congress’ intent to abrogate the states’ immunity, the abrogation exceeded Congress’ authority under

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, — U.S. -, -, 120 S.Ct. 631, 649-50, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000). Having carefully considered the present case.in light of Kimel, we conclude that the faculty members cannot maintain their ADEA suit against the University, a state employer. We therefore VACATE our prior judgment and AFFIRM the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ ADEA action. •