Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Paul G. Taggart (Carson City, Nevada, argued the cause for the petitioners)
Cornelia T. L. Pillard (Argued the cause for the respondent Hibbs)
Viet D. Dinh (Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondent United States)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
01-1368
Petitioner: 
Nevada Dept. of Human Resources
Respondent: 
Hibbs
Opinion: 
538 U.S. 721 (2003)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs , 538 U.S. 721 (2003)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1368)
Facts of the Case: 

William Hibbs, an employee of the Nevada Department of Human Resources, sought leave to care for his wife under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). The FMLA entitles an eligible employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave annually for the onset of a "serious health condition" in the employee's spouse. The Department granted Hibbs's request for the full 12 weeks of FMLA leave and, after he had exhausted that leave, informed him that he must report to work by a certain date. When Hibbs failed to do so, he was fired. Pursuant to FMLA provisions creating a private right of action "against any employer" that "interfered with, restrained, or denied the exercise of" FMLA rights, Hibbs sued in Federal District Court, seeking money damages for FMLA violations. The District Court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred the FMLA claim. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Question: 

May an individual sue a State for money damages in federal court for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993?

Conclusion: 

Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that State employees may recover money damages in federal court in the event of the State's failure to comply with the FMLA's family-care provision. The Court reasoned that Congress both clearly stated its intention to abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court under the FMLA and acted within its authority under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment by enacting prophylactic, rather than substantively redefining, legislation. "In sum, the States' record of unconstitutional participation in, and fostering of, gender-based discrimination in the administration of leave benefits is weighty enough to justify the enactment of prophylactic [section] 5 legislation," wrote Chief Justice Rehnquist. Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy, who was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Scalia, filed dissents.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Hibbs, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Clause

Sort by Ideology

Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Wrote a special concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote a dissent, joined Kennedy's dissent
Scalia
Wrote a dissent
Kennedy
Wrote a regular concurrence
Souter
Voted with the minority, joined Kennedy's dissent
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice William H. Rehnquist