Congress still has the authority to pass laws addressing sex discrimination in the workplace that states must respect. This was the crux of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the Family and Medical Leave Act as applied to the states. The 6-3 decision granting state employees the ability to sue their employer if leave is denied is a big win for state workers and workplace equality. It also signals a slightly more balanced approach on federalism issues. But only slightly.
In the case of Nevada Department of Human Resources vs. Hibbs, William Hibbs took a leave from his state job to care for his wife after a car crash. A dispute arose between Hibbs and the deparment over the term of his leave and he was fired for not returning to work within the time alloted. Hibbs claimed that the department hadn't given him the full leave guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act and sued. The department countered that it was immune from the suit under the 11th Amendment.
The Rehnquist court has been using its authority to slowly chip away at the power of Congress to pass laws that apply to the states. The court has justified this erosion of federal power by expansively reading the 11th Amendment's sovereign immunity guarantees.
According to the court, the 11th Amendment grants states broad immunity from lawsuits by state employees who are suing under federal law. Only where Congress is expressly authorized by the 14th Amendment to enforce due process and equal protection rights may that immunity be overcome, according to the court.
Under this federalism doctrine, the court in recent years has set aside lawsuits brought by state employees for violations of federal age discrimination and disability laws. This seemingly inexorable direction of the Rehnquist court led some court-watchers to predict that the Family and Medical Leave Act would go the same way.
But in a surprising opinion authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as well as the more liberal members of the court, the majority recognized the special role Congress has in eradicating sex discrimination and acknowledged the Family and Medical Leave Act as a prophylactic measure designed to break down sex stereotypes. "Congress sought to ensure 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," Rehnquist wrote.
The ruling demonstrates that the court isn't willing to attack congressional power in the realm of traditional civil rights issues. But there are other equally disturbing forms of discrimination, such as those suffered by older workers, that the court has blocked Congress from addressing. It appears, despite this small victory, that we will have to live with this crimped interpretation for as long as Rehnquist's ideas on federalism command a court majority.
