Family Leave Law Challenged by States

W A S H I N G T O N, Jan. 15, 2003 -- The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today on the Family and Medical Leave Act — the popular federal program that guarantees workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for children or sick relatives. But the arguments centered less on family responsibility and more on states' rights.

The challenge to the FMLA started with a car accident in which Diane Hibbs broke her neck. Her husband, William, worked for the state of Nevada and asked for 12 weeks off so he could care for his wife and four children.

The Hibbses say the time off was approved — then rescinded. "They offered my husband to take care of me in a time that I needed it, then turned around and said, 'Sorry, but we don't care enough to abide by what we said,'" said Diane Hibbs.

William Hibbs went to court.

But Nevada said Congress had no constitutional right to pass a law "allowing" states to be sued.

"It's a question whether Congress has the power to waive state, abrogate state immunity, make state treasuries subject to lawsuits whenever they want," said Paul Taggart, the deputy attorney general who argued Nevada's case today before the Supreme Court.

Meeting Responsibilities at Work and at Home

The federal law covers 60 percent of the work force, both public-sector and many private-sector employees. More than 35 million people — 43 percent of them men — have taken time off under the FMLA.

"Vast numbers … have been able to accommodate both their needs and to be responsible family member and responsible workers," said Judith Lichtman, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families. "Not having that leave will have dire consequences on the need for the kind of flexibility that families have, who want to stay on the job," she added.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., one of the original supporters of the 1993 legislation, said the law was designed to ensure workers would not have to choose between their jobs and their families.

The court's decision — due later this year — will immediately affect the nearly 5 million people who work for state governments. But supporters of the law believe a defeat at the Supreme Court could make the FMLA vulnerable to other, broader challenges.

"If this law, the Family Medical Leave Act, is thrown out, they'll be a huge push to get rid of Family Medical Leave Act in terms of private employers," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Some companies and states have their own medical leave policies for workers. But the federal law is generous and ironclad, which is one reason why this case has turned into a major test of workers' rights.