Supreme Court Rejects State Damages in Medical Leave Case

Tuesday, 20 Mar 2012 11:04 AM

 

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that states cannot be sued for money damages for violating a key provision of a federal law that gives workers time off for a serious medical condition, a decision that could affect millions of state employees.

The high court ruled 5-4 that lawsuits against states under the law were barred by state sovereign immunity, deciding a case about claims for money damages for violations of a provision of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act.

At issue was the law's "self-care" provision that allows a worker to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off to recover from a serious illness or medical condition. There are about 5 million state workers in the nation.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that states can be sued for money damages under another provision of the law that allows employees to take time off to care for a seriously ill family member.

But the high court's conservative majority ruled that the self-care provision is different. It said it agreed with every federal appeals court to have addressed the issue.

The Supreme Court's ruling was a defeat for tate employee Daniel Coleman, who worked for the Administrative Office of the Courts for the Maryland judiciary.

He sued for money damages, claiming he was wrongly fired for trying to take a 10-day medical leave in 2007 to deal with his hypertension and diabetes.

A federal judge and a U.S. appeals court dismissed Coleman's lawsuit, ruling the Constitution's 11th Amendment on state sovereign immunity barred it.

Coleman's attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court and argued the law represented a valid exercise of congressional power under the 14th Amendment, nullifying the usual sovereign immunity the states enjoy from lawsuits for money damages.

Maryland acknowledged that it cannot violate the law. But it argued that it was constitutionally protected from such lawsuits seeking money damages and that employees such as Coleman could instead seek a court order reinstating them to their job.

In the court's main opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled for the state. The court's other conservatives either joined his opinion or concurred in the outcome. The court four dissented.

The Supreme Court case is Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, No. 10-1016.

© 2014 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Retype Email:
Country
Zip Code:
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
You May Also Like

Lawyer: Detroit Case Could Spur Other Cities to File Chapter 9

Wednesday, 30 Jul 2014 20:21 PM

A New York lawyer told Newsmax TV on Wednesday that Detroit, by declaring bankruptcy and reaching a settlement that appe . . .

Rand Paul to Host: MSNBC Should Tell Truth About Me

Wednesday, 30 Jul 2014 20:10 PM

Sen. Rand Paul told an MSNBC host Wednesday he'll be happy to discuss his views on the Civil Rights Act "when your netwo . . .

Scientists: Earth Narrowly Escaped Devastating 2012 Solar Storm

Wednesday, 30 Jul 2014 19:07 PM

A powerful solar storm's near-miss with Earth two years ago could have wreaked massive havoc, but businesses and governm . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, NewsmaxWorld, NewsmaxHealth, are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved