Court: States liable under leave act
By Michael Kirkland UPI Legal Affairs Correspondent
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk Published 5/27/2003 12:04 PM
WASHINGTON, May 27 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday that state employees can sue for damages if states fail to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The 1993 act entitles an eligible employee -- not a high-ranking one -- to take up to 12 weeks unpaid leave each year for certain specified reasons, including the need to take care of a sick spouse, child or parent.
The act says that an employee has the right to sue "any employer (including a public agency) in any federal or state court of competent jurisdiction," when the employer interfered with an employee's rights under the law.
The case that brought Tuesday's ruling involves William Hibbs, who worked for the Welfare Division of the Nevada Department of Human Services.
In April and May 1997, Hibbs asked for leave under the FMLA to care for his wife, who was recovering from a car accident and neck surgery. The state agency granted him 12 weeks leave and told him he could use it intermittently as needed between May and December of that year.
In October, the Nevada agency told Hibbs he had exhausted his unpaid leave and ordered him back to work. When Hibbs didn't return, he was fired.
He filed suit in federal court seeking reinstatement and damages. But a federal judge dismissed the suit, saying Nevada had sovereignty immunity under the 11th Amendment and that Hibbs's constitutional rights had not been violated.
When a federal appeals court reversed, the state agency asked the Supreme Court for review and the justices heard argument last January. Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the appeals court.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said Congress has the authority to enforce constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment.
Moreover, the scope of the law is limited, he said.
