extends to suits brought against a state, its agencies or state officials sued in their official capacities. See e.g., Regents of the University of California v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429, 117 S.Ct. 900, 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997). A state may be subject to suit in federal court in two ways: (1) Congress can divest a state of immunity through a statutory enactment; or (2) a state may waive its immunity and agree to be sued in federal court. Close v. New York, 125 F.3d 31, 39 (2d Cir.1997). The Attorney General is a state agency and is, therefore, covered by the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that suits against states under the ADA and ADEA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Bd. of Tr. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62,
holding that qualified immunity under  1983 does not apply to actions brought under  521 holding that congress overstepped its constitutional authority when divesting states of immunity for claims brought under the ada and holding that states are protected by immunity for claims brought under these statutes holding that tort actions brought against a state actor must be brought in the illinois court of claims and the district courts dismissal of such claims was proper holding that the virginia disabilities act constitutes the most analogous state statute of limitations for claims brought under the ada holding that the states personal injury statutes of limitation should be applied for claims under section 1983