Fired worker loses suit against state

Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004 | 9:35 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A state welfare employee who was fired when he took too much time off to care for his ailing wife has lost his lawsuit seeking reinstatement or a judgment.

In Reno on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben granted a pre-trial summary judgment in favor of Nevada and the state Department of Human Resources in the lawsuit filed by William Hibbs. Hibbs was fired from his state job in December 1997.

Hibbs, who now lives in Ely, worked for the welfare division in Washoe County. When his wife, Dianne, was injured in an auto accident, he was granted 12 weeks of leave under the unpaid federal Family Leave Act. He was also approved for 180 hours of paid leave under the state's catastrophic leave policy.

They were to run concurrently and Hibbs was to report back to work Oct. 1, 1997. But he never showed up. He was then fired in December. He maintained the two leaves were to run consecutively.

McKibben said Hibbs cannot argue that he was fired for exercising his rights under the federal act and the case should be dismissed before trial.

Robert Hager, an attorney for Hibbs, said the judge was incorrect in his ruling and an appeal would be taken to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He said Hibbs is optimistic he could win his case before a jury and "He (Hibbs) would like his day in court."

Hibbs is living in Ely and is "basically unemployed," without a steady job. Hager said Hibbs had to sell his home in Virginia City and move to Ely where the cost of living is lower.

A spokesman for the state attorney general said the office is "pleased with the decision and the case was won on its merits."

Hibbs, through his other lawyer Treva Hearne, had offered to settle the case for $3.5 million or to put him back to work with his pay dating back to 1997.

Attorney General Brian Sandoval rejected the offer.

This case previously had reached the U.S. Supreme Court questioning if the state enjoyed immunity and could not be sued over the federal family leave law. The court ruled the state could be liable and sent the case back to the federal court in Reno.

McKibben had granted a summary judgment before on grounds the state enjoyed immunity unless it waived its protection against suits.