OPINION

Judith Burch appeals the dismissal of her pro se complaint by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. For the reasons below, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

*102 On October 5, 2005, Burch filed a pro se discrimination action against her former employer, defendant Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. She alleged that defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12201 et seq., when it discriminated and retaliated against her due to her alleged disability of, inter alia, depression and anxiety. Burch sought front and back pay, and “comprehensive” and punitive damages. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on Pennsylvania’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Burch timely appealed. 1

We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standard of review is plenary. See Gould Elec., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000).

In her complaint, Burch argued that defendant discriminated and retaliated against her due to her alleged disabilities. We agree with the District Court that the threshold issue in this matter is whether Burch may recover under Title I of the ADA for her discrimination and retaliation claims against defendant in federal court. She may not. Defendant, as an instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from a suit for damages brought pursuant to the ADA. See Bd. of Tr. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001); Benn v. First Judicial Dist. of Pa., 426 F.3d 233, 241 (3d Cir. 2005). 2 This immunity functions as an absolute bar to Burch’s ADA claim. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 3