Supreme Court Deals Blow to States' Rights
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 6/3/2003
The Supreme Court's ruling in Nevada Department v. Hibbs, reinforcing the stipulations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 was met with applause from American workers and civil rights advocates. The Supreme Court affirmed Congress' power by subordinating state immunity against suit in the face of gender discrimination in the workplace.The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires employers to provide all full-time employees, regardless of gender, with twelve weeks of unpaid leave for childbirth and family emergencies.
The Supreme Court cited Section 5 of Article 14 to endorse its stance on gender impartiality regarding leave. The Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist outlines the need to "protect the right to be free from gender-based discrimination in the workplace." The immense importance of this case lies in the federal government's decisive role in prioritizing the rights of the worker against gender discrimination over the autonomy of the states.
People For the American Way Foundation President Ralph G. Neas stated, "Not even Chief Justice Rehnquist has endorsed such a strict states' rights ideology that would effectively deprive millions of workers of the protections offered by the Family and Medical Leave Act."
However, numerous civil rights organizations are outraged by the Court's earlier rulings that undermined the power of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by giving states immunity from suits brought under those laws. By distinguishing between types of discrimination and assigning them varying degrees of weight, the Court is diminishing the rights of the elderly and disabled communities, argue social justice advocates.
