the opportunity to refute claims against him” and a “personnel commission determined his demotion was improper.” The Kinney court also noted that “the Seventh Circuit has continued to indicate that when an individual’s termination or dismissal directly violates a federal constitutional guarantee, he may maintain a suit for reinstatement.” Kinney, 2011 WL 1899345, at *7; see also Doe v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 429 F.Supp.2d 930, 941 (N.D.Ill.2006) (noting the holding in Sonnleitner but also noting that the “Seventh Circuit has ... continued to indicate that when an individual’s termination or dismissal directly violates a federal constitutional or statutory guarantee, he may maintain a suit for reinstatement”); Power v. Summers, 226 F.3d 815, 820 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Based on the reasoning of Kinney and Doe,
recognizing that when a state employee is sued in his official capacity the state is the real party in interest and as a result the eleventh amendment is implicated recognizing that section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment recognizing that claims against a state under  1981 are barred by the eleventh amendment holding that the eleventh amendment protected the state from the risk of adverse judgments even though the state was fully indemnified by the federal government for any damages that would arise from that judgment holding that an injunction that orders a state employee who has been demoted because of his exercise of a federally protected right to be restored to his previous position is not barred by the eleventh amendment even though it imposes a salary obligation on the state