awards, though the Court did not expressly consider retaliation claims. Most recently, in Hibbs v. Department of Human Resources, 273 F.3d 844, 857 (9th Cir.2001), cert. granted, 536 U.S. 938, 122 S.Ct. 2618, 153 L.Ed.2d 802 (2002), the Ninth Circuit held that “[bjecause state-sponsored gender discrimination is presumptively unconstitutional, section 5 legislation that is intended to remedy or prevent gender discrimination is presumptively constitutional.” However, Defendants argue that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Kimel v. Florida Board of R s, Congress may exercise its § .Kan.2002) (Congress properly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity in regard to retaliation provisions of Title VII). See also Nanda v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 303 F.3d 817 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Okruhlik v. University of Ark., 255 F.3d 615
holding congress did not exceed its authority in enacting the mdlea holding generally that congress validly abrogated state immunity in enacting title vii holding that congress did not intend to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity in enacting 42 usc  1983 holding that in enacting title vii congress abrogated eleventh amendment immunity holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii