Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland

Supreme Court of the United States
566 U.S. ____ (2012) (2012)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Congress cannot abrogate a state's sovereign immunity from suits for damages under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment for a statutory provision that is not congruent and proportional to a documented pattern of unconstitutional state conduct.

Facts:

Daniel Coleman was an employee of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a state entity.
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) entitles eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for their own serious health condition.
Coleman requested sick leave from his employer.
In response to his request, Coleman was informed that he would be terminated if he did not resign.

Procedural Posture:

Daniel Coleman sued the Court of Appeals of Maryland in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging a violation of the FMLA.
The District Court, a federal trial court, granted the State's motion to dismiss, holding that the suit for money damages was barred by sovereign immunity.
Coleman, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The Fourth Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court, affirmed the District Court's judgment.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted Coleman's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Fourth Circuit's decision.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the self-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which allows state employees to sue their state employers for money damages, validly abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Plurality - Justice Kennedy

No. The self-care provision of the FMLA does not validly abrogate the States' sovereign immunity because it is not a congruent and proportional remedy to a documented pattern of unconstitutional gender discrimination by the states. While Congress may abrogate state immunity under its Section 5 enforcement power, such legislation must be tailored to remedy or prevent specific constitutional violations. Unlike the FMLA's family-care provisions upheld in Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, which were supported by evidence of state-sponsored gender discrimination in family leave policies, the legislative record for the self-care provision lacks evidence of a pattern of states unconstitutionally discriminating in the administration of sick leave. The arguments that the provision counters gender stereotypes or is a necessary adjunct to the family-care provisions are speculative and unsupported by sufficient congressional findings.

Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg

Yes. The FMLA's self-care provision is a valid exercise of Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. The entire FMLA, including the self-care provision, was designed to combat gender discrimination in the workplace. Congress had ample evidence of widespread discrimination against pregnant women, which is a form of sex discrimination, and the self-care provision directly addresses this by guaranteeing job-protected leave for recovery from childbirth. Furthermore, by providing a gender-neutral benefit that men and women use with similar frequency, the self-care provision helps counteract the stereotype that family-related leave is primarily for women, thereby reducing employers' incentive to discriminate against female applicants and employees.

Concurring - Justice Thomas

No. While joining the plurality's opinion, Justice Thomas wrote separately to reiterate his view that Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs was wrongly decided. He believes that neither the family-care provision at issue in Hibbs nor the self-care provision in this case is sufficiently linked to a demonstrated pattern of unconstitutional discrimination by the States to justify abrogating their sovereign immunity.

Concurring - Justice Scalia

No. Justice Scalia concurred only in the judgment, arguing that the Court's 'congruence and proportionality' test is a 'flabby test' that invites 'judicial arbitrariness and policy-driven decisionmaking.' He would hold that Congress's Section 5 power is limited to regulating conduct that itself violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Since failing to grant an employee self-care leave is not unconstitutional, Congress lacks the power to abrogate state immunity for violations of that FMLA provision.

Analysis:

This decision further solidifies the Court's state sovereign immunity jurisprudence, significantly limiting Congress's ability to create private damage remedies against states. By distinguishing the FMLA's self-care provision from its family-care provisions, the Court created a split within a single statute, making one part enforceable against states for damages while the other is not. This holding forces litigants suing state employers under the FMLA to either rely on the family-care provisions, seek only injunctive relief against state officials, or depend on enforcement actions by the U.S. Department of Labor, thereby narrowing the avenues for individual redress.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland (2012)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature