Amendment with state sovereign immunity. ECF 19 at 3-4. As the Supreme Court has held, “a State does not consent to suit in federal court merely by consenting to suit in the courts of its own creation.” Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 676, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999). Defendants note that Plaintiff cannot cite any cases affirmatively holding that Eleventh Amendment immunity does not prevent a federal court from hearing a Whistleblower Law claim. The Court, however, has located several cases that appear to either have not considered Eleventh Amendment implications or presupposed that the Eleventh Amendment is not a bar. See Obotetukudo v. Clarion U. of Pa., Civil Action No. 13-0639, 2015 WL 1524460, at *15 (W.D.Pa. Apr. 2, 2015) (<HOLDING>) and Dennison v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 268
recognizing that claims against a state under  1981 are barred by the eleventh amendment holding that a takings claim was barred under the eleventh amendment where state courts provided a means of redress for such claims holding that a claimunder the pennsylvania human rights act was barred by eleventh amendment immunity while simultaneously holding that a claim under the whistleblower law was untimely rather than precluded holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that a city charter is a law under the whistleblower act