Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs

Background

A Nevada state employee asked for and received the FMLA’s 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for his injured wife, but after the employer said his leave was exhausted he did not return and was fired. He sued the Nevada Department of Human Resources seeking money damages and other relief under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The District Court dismissed the suit as barred by state immunity; the Ninth Circuit reversed and the Supreme Court took the case.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether Congress could lawfully strip states of their usual immunity from private money suits when enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment. It held that Congress clearly said it intended to allow suits and that Congress acted under its enforcement power in §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found Congress had a record showing state leave policies and practices relied on gender stereotypes and that the FMLA’s family‑care rule was a congruent and proportional response. The opinion emphasized limits in the law: leave is unpaid, applies only to eligible employees, excludes certain high‑level state officials, requires notice and medical certification, and defines recoverable damages and time limits.

Real world impact

As a practical matter, the ruling means state employees can pursue money damages in federal court if a State denies FMLA family‑care leave. The decision treats the FMLA family‑care provision as remedial §5 legislation aimed at preventing sex‑based leave discrimination, while recognizing statutory limits on coverage and remedies.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Souter and Stevens joined the judgment in separate opinions; Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas dissented, arguing Congress lacked adequate evidence to override state immunity and that the federal rule improperly imposes a nationwide entitlement.