acted “pursuant to a valid exercise of power.” Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 55, 116 S.Ct. at 1123 (internal quotations omitted). Specifically, the state contends that the disparate impact provisions of Title VII are not a valid exercise of Congress’ Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power. i. Our adjudication of this issue would seem to be largely foreclosed by the former Fifth Circuit’s decision in Scott v. City of Anniston, 597 F.2d 897, 900 (5th Cir.1979), in which the court held that “Title VII is unquestionably appropriate legislation to enforce the equal protection clause” and that “the ‘disproportionate impact’ standard [articulated in Griggs ] [is] an appropriate means of fulfilling those objectives.” See also Allen v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 816 F.2d 575, 577 (11th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). In Scott, black employees of the Public Works
holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding that in civil actions invoking title vii state defendants lack eleventh amendment protection holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original holding that in enacting title vii congress abrogated eleventh amendment immunity holding title vii abrogates the eleventh amendment because it is based in fourteenth amendment which limits state authority in other ways as well