Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland

Summary

A plurality of the Supreme Court held that the FMLA's self-care provision, 29 U.S.C. §2612(a)(1)(D), does not validly abrogate the States' sovereign immunity from damages suits under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, because at enactment Congress had no evidence of sex-based discrimination or stereotyping in state sick-leave policies and the provision is not congruent and proportional to any identified pattern of constitutional violations. The plurality distinguished the provision from the family-care provision upheld in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, rejecting arguments that it targets sex stereotyping, operates in tandem with family-care leave, or aids single parents beyond remedying disparate impacts. Justice Thomas concurred, reiterating his view that Hibbs was itself wrongly decided; Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment while urging abandonment of the congruence-and-proportionality test; Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justice Breyer and by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan except as to footnote 1, contending the provision validly enforces equal protection and urging reconsideration of Geduldig v. Aiello.