Rate this article:
Average rating:
Total votes: 0
Thanks to a Supreme Court decision, state government workers -- besieged though they are by budget crises -- have one less thing worry about: If a family member needs caring for, these public servants can take time off to do it.
The decision, Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, gives state workers what their cohorts in the private sector have enjoyed since 1993: The right to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave from work when the worker or an immediate family needs help at home due to a serious medical condition or when there's a new baby in the house.
States No Longer Exempt from Federal Law
Citing their immunity to private lawsuit under the 11th Amendment, states generally have claimed that the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) does not apply to their employees. In a 6-3 decision with the majority opinion written by conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the high court ruled that the abrogation of the states' immunity was justified by society's interest in reversing a long history of gender-based bias.
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote: “By creating an across-the-board, routine employment benefit for all eligible employees, Congress sought to ensure [by enacting FMLA] that family-care leave would no longer be stigmatized as an inordinate drain on the workplace caused by female employees, and that employers could not evade leave obligations simply by hiring men.”
Some States Already Grant Leave
But this doesn't amount to a reversal of fortune for all 50 states. “In reality, I think most public employers have been giving leave” to workers with the kinds of family demands covered by FMLA, says Sherril Colombo, an employment lawyer with Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP in Miami.
In addition, California and 10 other states have their own family and medical leave statutes, and in some cases, the rights accorded to workers exceed those created by the federal law.
Five Million Thumbs Up
Still, the court's decision is a major victory for the nation's nearly 5 million state workers and was widely applauded by public employee unions and advocates of workers' and women's rights.
“The Supreme Court is drawing a line in the sand,” says Jodi Grant, director of work and family programs at the National Partnership for Women & Families in Washington, DC. “State employees will now be covered by this federal law.”
The National Partnership provided legal representation in the case for plaintiff Williams Hibbs, a Nevada worker who lost his job after taking leave to care for his injured wife.
Trend-Breaker or Lone Exception?
“This ruling is especially good news, because it breaks a disturbing string of eight major Supreme Court rulings that undermined congressional authority to protect constitutional rights,” Judith Lichtman, president of the National Partnership, said in a statement. In the past few years, high court rulings generally have strengthened states' rights and progressively narrowed the scope of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
“This was an about-face for the Supreme Court,” says Colombo.
Is this a true turning point for the Supreme Court, or a brief detour from a continuing campaign that boosts state's rights, often at the expense of workers in the public and private sectors? Observers can only speculate.
