The U.S. Supreme Court case J. Daniel Kimel, Jr., et al. v. Florida Board of Regents, et al., 1999 revolved around the issue of age discrimination in employment and whether state employees could sue their employers for monetary damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The plaintiffs were a group of current and former state university faculty members who alleged that they had been discriminated against on the basis of their age by being denied certain salary increases due to younger faculty members receiving larger raises than older ones. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that while Congress did have the power to enforce anti-discrimination laws through legislation like ADEA, it did not validly abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits for money damages by private individuals in federal court when enacting ADEA's provisions applicable to States as employers.

In the dissenting opinion for Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, Justice Stevens argued that age discrimination should be viewed with the same level of scrutiny as other forms of discrimination. He contended that older workers often face similar prejudices and stereotypes to those faced by minority groups, and thus deserve equal protection under the law. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that Congress overstepped its bounds in applying Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) to state governments; instead, he believed this was a valid exercise of power under Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment. He also criticized the majority's reliance on City of Boerne v Flores case precedent which limited Congressional powers under Section 5 - arguing it was misapplied here because ADEA is not a substantive change but rather an attempt to enforce existing constitutional rights against age-based discrimination.