Argument of Chief Justice Rehnquist
Mr. Rehnquist: I have the opinion of the Court to announce in No. 01-1368 the Nevada Department of Human Resources versus Hibbs.
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 or FMLA entitles an eligible employee to take up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave annually for the onset of a serious health condition in the employee's spouse.
The Act also creates a private right of action to seek damages against any employer that interferes with restrains or denies the exercise of these rights.
Respondent Hibbs was formerly employed by petitioner, the Nevada Department of Human Resources; it terminated him when he exhausted his FMLA leave and failed to return to work.
He has sued in federal District Court in the District of Nevada seeking damages for these violations of the Act.
The District Court awarded the Department summary judgment on the ground that the claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed.
We granted certiorari and in an opinion filed today with the Clerk of the Court, we affirm.
Congress may abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in Federal Court if it acts pursuant to a valid exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Congress would act within it Section 5 authority, we hold when it sought to abrogate the States' immunity for purposes of FMLA's family leave provision.
In the exercise of its Section 5 power of Congress may enact prophylactic legislation that prescribes facially constitutional conduct in order to prevent unconstitutional conduct.
Valid Section 5 legislation must exhibit congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented in the means adopted to that end.
The Act aims to protect the right to be free from gender-based discrimination in the workplace.
When it enacted the Act, Congress have before significant evidence of sex discrimination by the States with respect to the administration of leave benefit.
This evidence is sufficiently weighty to justify the enactment of the prophylactic Section 5 legislation, and the Act's family care provision is congruent and proportional to the targeted violation.
Justice Souter has filed a concurring opinion in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer have joined; Justice Stevens has filed an opinion concurring in the judgment; Justice Scalia has filed a dissenting opinion; Justice Kennedy has also filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Scalia and Thomas have joined.
