Constitutional Law—State Employees Have Private Cause of Action against Employers under Family and Medical Leave Act—Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003).
The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that non-consenting states are not subject to suit in federal court. Congress may, however, abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity by enacting legislation to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether Congress acted within its constitutional authority by abrogating sovereign immunity under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which allows private causes of action against state employers to enforce the FMLA’s family-leave provision. The Court held abrogation was proper under the FMLA and state employees could bring private actions against their employers because Congress acted within its constitutional authority when it passed the FMLA for the purpose of remedying a history of gender-based discrimination in the workplace.
Constitutional Law | Health Law and Policy | Jurisprudence | Labor and Employment Law | Law and Gender | Public Law and Legal Theory | Sexuality and the Law | Social Welfare Law
Date of this Version
Gabriel H. Teninbaum, "Constitutional Law—State Employees Have Private Cause of Action against Employers under Family and Medical Leave Act—Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003)." (December 22, 2004). bepress Legal Series. bepress Legal Series.Working Paper 438.