## Facts

- Daniel Coleman was employed by the Maryland Court of Appeals, an instrumentality of the State of Maryland.
- Coleman requested leave for his own documented medical condition under the FMLA’s self-care provision, 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D).
- After requesting leave, Coleman was terminated.
- Coleman filed a federal lawsuit seeking money damages, alleging the State violated the FMLA by denying self-care leave and terminating him.
- The FMLA provides eligible employees up to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave annually for specified reasons, including an employee’s own serious health condition that interferes with work.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress validly abrogated States’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity by authorizing private suits for money damages against state employers under the FMLA self-care provision, 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D).
2. Whether the self-care provision is a valid exercise of Congress’s enforcement power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to States.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit in a 5–4 decision, holding that suits for money damages against nonconsenting States under the FMLA self-care provision are barred by sovereign immunity.
- The Court accepted that the FMLA makes Congress’s intent to subject public employers to suit unmistakably clear, but held that the self-care provision was not a valid § 5 abrogation measure.
- The plurality distinguished Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, which upheld abrogation for the FMLA family-care provision based on evidence of sex-based stereotyping by state employers.
- The plurality found the legislative record for self-care leave did not show a pattern of unconstitutional sex discrimination by States in denying medical leave for employees’ own health conditions.
- Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment, reasoning that § 5 permits Congress to regulate only conduct that itself violates the Fourteenth Amendment, making the self-care provision ineligible as a basis to impose damages liability on States.
- Justice Thomas concurred separately, agreeing the self-care provision could not be enforced through private damages suits against States and expressing doubt about the sufficiency of the record supporting Hibbs.
- Justice Ginsburg dissented, arguing the FMLA’s provisions work together to counter sex-role stereotypes and pregnancy-related discrimination and that abrogation should be upheld for self-care leave as well.

## Legal Principles

- States are immune from private suits for money damages in federal court absent waiver or valid congressional abrogation.
- Congress may abrogate state sovereign immunity under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment only when (1) its intent is unmistakably clear in the statute and (2) the remedy is congruent and proportional to preventing or remedying identified constitutional violations by States.
- The validity of abrogation must be assessed provision by provision; a general antidiscrimination objective does not alone justify damages suits against States.
- The FMLA self-care provision lacks a sufficient record of unconstitutional sex-based discrimination by States to justify subjecting nonconsenting States to private money-damages actions.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Congress did not validly subject nonconsenting States to private suits for money damages under the FMLA’s self-care leave provision; Coleman’s FMLA damages claim against the Maryland Court of Appeals was therefore barred by sovereign immunity.


Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md., 566 U.S. 30 (2012)