Clifford D. Raper v. State of IA
115 F.3d 623
8th Cir.
1997
Check Treatment

Clifford Daniel RAPER, and All Other Similarly Situated Employees, Appellants, v. STATE OF IOWA; Iowa Department of Public Safety, Appellees. John M. VARNUM, Larry W. Pottridge, and All Other Similarly Situated Employees, Appellants, v. STATE OF IOWA; Iowa Department of Transportation, Appellees. Clinton PHILLIPS, Kurt Gunther, Larry Farrington, Steve Faber, Richard Rewis, and All Other Similarly Situated Employees, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; State of Iowa, Appellees. Duane KENNEDY, and All Other Similarly Situated Employees, Appellants, v. The DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES; State of Iowa, Appellees.

No. 96-2895SI

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Submitted Feb. 12, 1997. Decided June 13, 1997.

115 F.3d 623

mand to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Pamela J. Prager, Des Moines, Iowa, argued (R. Todd Gaffney, on the brief), for Appellants.

Jeffrey D. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General (argued), Des Moines, Iowa, for Appellees.

Before FAGG, HEANEY, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

Clifford Daniel Raper and other Iowa state employees brought these lawsuits contending the State of Iowa is liable for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Relying on

, the district court dismissed the employees’ FLSA challenge to the employment practices of various state agencies for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See
. In
, the Supreme Court concluded that Congress lacks the power to abrogate a state‘s Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacts legislation under the Interstate Commerce Clause. See
; see also
(state employees’ FLSA action seeking unpaid overtime was not authorized by the Commerce Clause). On appeal, the employees argue the district court failed to recognize that Congress could have revoked the state‘s sovereign immunity from their FLSA lawsuits under the enforcement power of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like the Sixth Circuit in
, modified on other grounds,
(per curiam), we reject the employees’ argument because the FLSA‘s overtime provisions cannot be regarded as serving a Fourteenth Amendment purpose, see
. Although beyond the scope of the issues in these consolidated appeals, we nevertheless make clear that we leave for another day the issue of whether the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to override a state‘s Eleventh Amendment immunity for violations of the FLSA‘s equal pay provisions. See
.

We thus affirm the judgment of the district court.