Friday, Jan. 17, 2003 | 9:23 a.m.
A 1997 dispute between a Nevada state employee and his bosses at the Welfare Division has grown into a case that could affect federal enforcement of civil rights and sexual discrimination laws. The case is Nevada Department of Human Resources versus Hibbs. Arguments were heard Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court and a ruling is expected this summer. It all started when the state fired William Hibbs after he had been away from work nearly six months while caring for his wife, who had been severely injured in a car accident. The state's position was that he had used up all of his leave benefits. Hibbs maintained that he still had time coming under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act that Congress passed 10 years ago. The law gives workers the right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in the event of births, adoptions or medical emergencies in their families.
The issue for the Supreme Court is not whether the state was right or wrong in calculating Hibbs' leave time, but whether he had the right to sue Nevada for an answer to that question. The U.S. District Court in Reno tossed out Hibbs' suit, saying under the 11th Amendment states are immune to lawsuits filed in federal court. On appeal, however, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court reversed that decision, saying Congress was constitutionally correct when it inserted language in the law making it exempt from 11th Amendment challenges by states. The 14th Amendment, for example, declares that no one shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and also that U.S. citizens are guaranteed "equal protection of the laws." Congress fully intended for the law to benefit all workers, state workers included, the circuit court found. Nevada then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that "Congress cannot simply foist that duty upon states and place state treasu! ries at risk to court judgments. Except in very rare situations, states control when and where to waive their immunity."
Two recent 5-4 decisions by the high court in seemingly similar cases appear favorable to the view of Nevada's government. In both cases, one involving federal protections under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the other involving rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the states won narrow victories in their claim to immunity from federal suits. We agreed with the minority in those cases. In another similar case in 1999, regarding a Maine state employee's suit for relief under a federal law guaranteeing overtime pay to public employees, the court again voted 5-4 in favor of states. Justice John Paul Stevens, however, was eloquent in his dissent: "The principal that 'no man is above the law' -- which applies to the president of the United States as well as the lowest public servant -- should apply equally to the states."
In the Hibbs case, which has implications above and beyond the other cases, the Supreme Court should end its string of 5-4 votes in favor of states. Nevada's appeal should be denied to protect the all-important strides that have been made in guaranteeing civil rights and enforcing gender equality in the workplace.
The Family and Medical Leave Act was passed to end ages of discrimination against women. Employers, including those in state governments, looked unfavorably on hiring women, as they were considered very likely to ask for long absences because of pregnancies, child care and other family matters. With both men and women eligible for long absences, discrimination against women lessened. While the courts have been known to rule that employers have discretion in certain cases involving age, disabilities and paychecks, discrimination based on race or sex is now always considered unconstitutional. As we see it, if state employees are denied rights under a federal law protecting against sexual discrimination, the door is open for states that want to skirt the federal civil rights laws. State employees should have the same rights as all other citizens.
archive
