Nevada Department of Human Resources v. William Hibbs
The Supreme Court ruled that a state worker who was fired after taking family medical leave could sue the State of Nevada for money damages under the Family and Medical Leave Act, even though states usually have immunity from private lawsuits.
The Court held that Congress had enough evidence of state governments perpetuating gender stereotypes in how they handled family leave to justify overriding that immunity, marking one of the rare times the Court allowed Congress to strip states of their normal protection from being sued.
“The FMLA aims to protect the right to be free from gender-based discrimination in the workplace.”
The majority explains the core purpose behind the law's family-leave requirement.
How it got here: A federal trial court ruled for Nevada, holding the state was immune from suit; the Ninth Circuit reversed and the Supreme Court agreed to review the immunity question.
The Case in Depth
What happened
William Hibbs worked for the Nevada Department of Human Resources. He took federally guaranteed unpaid leave to care for his wife after a car accident and neck surgery. When Nevada told him he had used up his leave and had to return to work, he did not, and the state fired him. He sued the state and two officials for violating his rights under the federal leave law.
The question before the Court
Can a state employee sue a state government for money damages when the state violates the federal law giving workers unpaid leave to care for a sick family member?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court ruled that state employees can sue their state employer for money damages under the family-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Congress can normally only override a state's usual immunity from private lawsuits if it acts under its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection guarantee, and does so clearly.
The Court found that Congress had gathered substantial evidence that state employers relied on outdated stereotypes — that women, not men, are responsible for family caregiving — in administering leave policies, and that this pattern of sex-based discrimination justified requiring states to offer a uniform, gender-neutral minimum leave benefit enforceable through private lawsuits. Because sex discrimination gets stricter constitutional scrutiny than the age or disability discrimination at issue in earlier cases where the Court reached the opposite result, it was easier for Congress to show a real pattern of state wrongdoing here.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
State government employees nationwide can now sue their state employers for money damages if the state denies them the family and medical leave the federal law guarantees. The ruling also clarifies how far Congress can go in stripping states of lawsuit immunity when addressing discrimination based on sex, as opposed to age or disability.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision. Nevada state employees, and state employees nationwide, can bring FMLA family-leave damages claims against their state employers in federal court. The case does not disturb the FMLA's application through the Commerce Clause or other enforcement avenues, such as suits brought by the federal government or requests for injunctions against state officials, which remained available even without this ruling.
What this does not decide
The ruling addresses only the FMLA's family-care leave provision for spouses, children, and parents with serious health conditions. It does not decide whether states can be sued for damages under other parts of the FMLA, such as parenting or self-care leave, which the majority treated as resting on different evidence.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (5). Justice Rehnquist (author), joined by Justice O'Connor, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer.
Separate writings (1). Justice Stevens (author of a concurrence).
Dissent (3). Justice Scalia (author), joined by Justice Thomas.
Concurrence — Justice Souter
Justice Souter agreed the FMLA validly abrogates state immunity even under the Court's existing narrow view of Congress's Section 5 power, but noted he would find it valid under his own broader understanding of that power as well, without conceding the reasoning of his prior dissents in related cases.
Concurrence — Justice Stevens
Justice Stevens agreed with the outcome but on different grounds. He argued the Eleventh Amendment's text does not bar this suit because Hibbs is a Nevada citizen suing Nevada, and that the real obstacle is a judge-made sovereign immunity doctrine that Congress can override through its commerce power alone.
Dissent — Justice Scalia
Justice Scalia joined Kennedy's dissent and added that Congress cannot justify overriding one state's immunity based on discrimination by other states; each state's immunity can only be abrogated based on evidence of that state's own constitutional violations, which he said the majority never supplied for Nevada specifically.
Dissent — Justice Kennedy
“I would hold that the Act is not a valid abrogation of state sovereign immunity and dissent with respect from the Court's conclusion to the contrary.”Kennedy's closing statement that Nevada should have kept its immunity from the lawsuit.
Justice Kennedy argued the FMLA's leave mandate is a substantive entitlement program, not a remedy for proven constitutional violations, because Congress lacked real evidence that states themselves (as opposed to private employers) discriminated in administering family leave. He would have held the law invalid as applied to allow private damages suits against states, while noting employees could still sue individual officials for injunctions or rely on federal enforcement. Read the full dissent →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Congress can only strip states of their normal immunity from private lawsuits (a protection rooted in the Eleventh Amendment) if it clearly says so in the statute and is validly enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees under Section 5 of that amendment, rather than just regulating commerce.
- The Court confirmed the FMLA clearly stated Congress's intent to let employees sue states for damages, satisfying the first requirement.
- Under Section 5, Congress may pass 'prophylactic' legislation — rules that go further than the Constitution strictly requires — in order to prevent and deter unconstitutional conduct, but the law must show 'congruence and proportionality': a close fit between the violations Congress found and the remedy it chose.
- Because laws that treat men and women differently must pass a demanding test — serving an important government goal through means substantially related to it — it takes less evidence for Congress to show a constitutional problem with sex-based state action than with age- or disability-based action, which only needs a rational basis.
- The Court found Congress had documented a long pattern of states relying on stereotypes that caregiving is women's responsibility, reflected in unequal parental leave policies and discretionary leave practices that could be applied in discriminatory ways.
- Because the FMLA's remedy — a modest, gender-neutral, narrowly limited leave requirement — was closely tailored to that specific problem and unlike broader laws struck down in prior cases, the Court concluded the law was an appropriate use of Congress's enforcement power.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett (531 U. S. 356)
Distinguished because disability discrimination gets easier rational-basis review, unlike the tougher scrutiny for sex discrimination here.
Distinguishes Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents (528 U. S. 62)
Distinguished because age discrimination, unlike sex discrimination, only needs a rational basis to be constitutional.
Reaffirms Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (427 U. S. 445)
Relied on as precedent that Congress can abrogate state immunity to fight sex discrimination in employment.
Reaffirms City of Boerne v. Flores (521 U. S. 507)
Its congruence-and-proportionality test is applied again to judge whether the FMLA is valid Section 5 legislation.