In a 5-4 opinion delivered Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state employers are immune from suit for damages under the self-care provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
In the case, Daniel Coleman sued his employer, the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, for $1.1 million in damages when he was refused sick leave to attend to a documented medical condition. The lower courts dismissed Coleman’s case, holding that the claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment’s grant of sovereign immunity to states, which prevents states from being sued for monetary damages.
Coleman argued that such claims are authorized under the Fourteenth Amendment, which gives Congress the power to draft legislation overriding the states’ immunity from suit in order to remedy or prevent state activity that would deny citizens their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.
This argument was successful in the 2003 decision in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that states aren’t immune from claims based on alleged violations of the family-care provisions of the FMLA. In the Hibbs case, the Court determined that Congress had enacted the family-care portion of the FMLA in response to the states’ record of unconstitutional participation in and fostering of gender-based discrimination in the administration of leave benefits.
Yet in the Coleman opinion, the court found no similar congressional record that the drafting and enactment of the self-care provisions were motivated by the prevention of gender discrimination. Therefore, the majority opinion, drafted by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that the state’s immunity to Coleman’s suit would stand.
In her dissent, which she read aloud in court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote that the entire FMLA is directed at preventing sex discrimination, noting that “it would make scant sense to provide job-protected leave for a woman to care for a newborn, but not for her recovery from delivery, a miscarriage, or the birth of a stillborn baby.” Ginsburg continued by stating that “at least the damage [of this opinion] is contained,” as suits for damages under the self-care provisions are still enforceable against private employers.
Read the full text of the Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland opinion
Learn more about the Family and Medical Leave Act with FMLA Complete Compliance
Very detailed arguments that are typically only pursued (and overall understood) by attorneys specializing in constitutional law are involved in these decisions. The rest of us sit and wait for the decisions to be issued. In any event, this decision is important for the employment law litigator.