Facts
- William Hibbs worked for the Nevada Department of Human Resources, Welfare Division.
- In 1997, Hibbs requested leave to care for his wife while she recovered from a car accident and neck surgery.
- The Department approved up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and allowed intermittent use between May and December 1997.
- Hibbs took leave through August 5, 1997, and then did not return to work.
- In October 1997, the Department informed Hibbs he had exhausted FMLA leave, denied further leave, ordered him to report by November 12, 1997, and terminated him when he did not return.
- Hibbs sued the Department and state officials in federal court seeking money damages and equitable relief for violating the FMLA’s family-care provision, 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the State based on Eleventh Amendment immunity; the Ninth Circuit reversed.
Issues
- Whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity, permitting a private suit for money damages against a State for violating the FMLA’s family-care provision, 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C).
- Whether the FMLA contains an unmistakably clear statement of Congress’s intent to subject States to suit.
- Whether the family-care provision is valid § 5 Fourteenth Amendment enforcement legislation under the “congruence and proportionality” standard.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that state employees may recover money damages in federal court when a State fails to comply with the FMLA’s family-care provision.
- The Court found Congress clearly expressed its intent to abrogate state immunity by authorizing suits for damages against any employer, including public agencies, in any court of competent jurisdiction.
- The Court held that the family-care provision is a valid exercise of Congress’s § 5 power because it targets and deters unconstitutional sex discrimination in the administration of leave benefits.
- The Court concluded the provision is congruent and proportional to a substantial record of state-sponsored gender stereotyping in leave policies and practices.
- Dissents argued the legislative record was insufficiently tied to unconstitutional conduct by state governments and that the remedy exceeded § 5 limits.
Legal Principles
- Congress may abrogate state sovereign immunity if it (1) states that intent unmistakably clearly in the statute and (2) acts pursuant to a valid exercise of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Under § 5, Congress may enact preventive legislation that reaches some constitutional conduct to deter or remedy unconstitutional conduct, but the remedy must be congruent and proportional to the demonstrated constitutional harm.
- Sex-based discrimination triggers heightened equal protection scrutiny, and a documented pattern of state reliance on gender stereotypes can justify targeted federal remedies.
- The FMLA’s family-care leave scheme (limited duration, unpaid leave, eligibility limits, and specified reasons) supported the conclusion that the remedy was sufficiently tailored to the constitutional problem addressed.
Conclusion
The Court held that the FMLA’s family-care provision validly enforces the Fourteenth Amendment by combating state gender discrimination in leave administration and therefore permits state employees to sue States for money damages notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment.