CURRENT EVENT REPORT Current Event Report Current paper discusses article entitled Justices Limit Suits Filed

Over Family Leave

Act Violations by Adam Liptak. This article is published in The New York Times on March 20, 2012. Liptak discusses recent Supreme Court decision in Coleman v Court of Appeals of Maryland. In the following paragraphs I will briefly outline the content of the article and discuss it. In the case Coleman v Court of Appeals of Maryland the Supreme Court held that state workers cannot sue their employers for money for contravening a part of federal Family and Medical Leave Act (Liptak, 2012). The case is marked by a significant split in judges opinions: five-to-four votes (Liptak, 2012). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is among those who dissent. The justice notes that the majority decision makes it more difficult for women to live balanced lives, at home and in gainful employment. (Liptak, 2012). Liptak (2012) draws attention that in 2003, in Nevada Department of Human Resources v Hibbs, the Supreme Court allowed suits against state employers under part of the law that involved leaves taken to provide care for family members. The Coleman case is concerned with a part of law that provides that eligible employees may to deal with their own serious medical conditions (Liptak, 2012). The question which caused a significant division among judges is whether the law implied to address sex discrimination (Liptak, 2012). The lawsuit was filed by a man, Daniel Coleman, who had been employed by the Maryland Court of Appeals (Liptak, 2012). Mr. Coleman claimed that the state infringed law by denying him sick leave (Liptak, 2012). Maryland, in its turn, argued that federal law, which is Family and Medical Leave Act, was not applicable as states, being sovereigns, enjoy immunity from lawsuits for money (Liptak, 2012). Liptak (2012) notes that in aforementioned 2003 decision, the Supreme Court denied the similar argument from Nevada concerning a suit under a family leave provision. In Hibbs the Supreme Court explained that

CURRENT EVENT REPORT the Congress was allowed to authorize the monetary claims to states in order protect the right to be free from gender-based discrimination in the workplace getting rid of dominant sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is womens job (Liptak, 2012). Justice Kennedy, who supported the majority opinion, explained that the Coleman case differs from Hibbs since the Congress did not collected an adequate record to demonstrate

that the self-care provision represented suitable and proportional response to documented sex discrimination (Liptak, 2012). Justice Kennedy further specified that without persuading evidence of sex discrimination or sex stereotyping in the maintenance of sick leave, the Congressional intent in enacting self-care provision was irrelevant to wrongs concerned (Liptak, 2012). Dissenting Justice Ginsburg noted that the entire Family and Medical Leave Act is directed at sex discrimination (Liptak, 2012) and thus, rejecting Justice Kennedys argument that the Congressional purpose is irrelevant to self-care provision in this particular case. Ginsburg stated that the entire act constitutes an appropriate response to pervasive discriminatory treatment of pregnant women (Liptak, 2012). The Justice added that the law allows avoiding discouragement employers from hiring women (Liptak, 2012). Justice Ginsburg linked self-care provision and avoiding sex discrimination, at which the law is directed. Thus, the Justice pointed out that the originally was meant to guarantee that pregnant women would not loose their jobs after they gave birth, and this is done, by introduction of self-provision (Liptak, 2012). The value of this article is that it outlines important principles of employment law upheld by the Supreme Court. By this decision, the Supreme Court, in fact established that when there is no issue of sex discrimination, an employee may not sue the state employer for money. To specify, the Congress has the authority to regulate state matters when there is an issue of sex discrimination. When such issue is absent the Congress may not intervene in

CURRENT EVENT REPORT

state matters. Therefore, since the Congress cannot intervene in state matters, the Family and Medical Leave Act does not apply. The important aspect of the Coleman case is that it draws the line between state and federal authority in employment matters, in particular, those ones that relate to state employment. In other words, the decision establishes when the Family and Medical Leave Act is not applicable. What implications the decision may have for the HR management. The most important implication is that HR management should have a clear understanding when its policies are regulated by the Family and Medical Leave Act and when they are not. In particular, HR management, while setting its leave policies, should consider that when the concrete provision of the policy involves sex discrimination (for example, unfavourable to maternal leave), an employee is entitled to bring a monetary claim against the employer. However, if nothing in leave policies indicates sex discrimination, employees can not claim money for any wrongs connected with leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Coleman case provides a more deep understanding of Family and Medical Leave Act discussed in Chapter Fifteen ( Bennett- Alexander & Hartman, 2012). In this chapter, it is said that the Family and Medical Leave Act caused a lot of confusion to HR professionals. In particular, there have been questions as to how seriously ill an employee should be to be entitled for leave and so on ( Bennett- Alexander & Hartman, 2012). The Coleman case does not resolve this particular question. However, it the decision establishes limits of application of the act. Thus, the Supreme Court in fact held that the act is not applicable under the following conditions: (a) state employer is concerned; (b) self-care provision is concerned; and (c) no evidence of sex discrimination. Also the Coleman, outlines the different treatment of state and private employers. Monetary claims under self-care provision are allowed against private employers, but not state ones.

CURRENT EVENT REPORT The Supreme Court decision in Coleman case opens a room for state employers to claim that not only self-care provision is not applicable to them, but also other provisions, if the do not relate to sex discrimination issues. Thus, it gives an opportunity for increased independence of state employers from federal laws.

CURRENT EVENT REPORT

References: Bennett- Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. P. (2012). (6 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Liptak, A. (2012, March 20). Justices limit suits filed over family leave act violations. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/us/supremecourt-limits-lawsuits-over-family-leave-act.html?scp=11&sq=Supreme Court Adam Liptak&st=nyt