holding FMLA family leave provi- sion validly abrogated state sovereign immunity: “pervasive sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is women’s work,” in turn “foster[ing] employers’ stereotypical views about women’s commitment to work and their value as employees”
How later courts described this case
- holding FMLA family leave provi- sion validly abrogated state sovereign immunity: “pervasive sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is women’s work,” in turn “foster[ing] employers’ stereotypical views about women’s commitment to work and their value as employees”
- holding that Congress constitutionally abrogated sovereign immunity for claims seeking money damages for violations of the “family care” provision
- concluding that “[t]he record in this case supports the postulate that women experience unwanted intimate touching by men differently from men subject to comparable touching by women.”
- finding an intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity in the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2617 , where the act expressly allowed a suit against a “public agency,” defined “to include both ‘the government of a State or political subdivision thereof’ and ‘any agency of . . . a State, or a political subdivision of a State’ ” (quoting 29 U.S.C. §§ 203 (x), 2611(4)(A)(iii)) (alterations in original)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Stevens,
concurring in the judgment.
Because I have never been convinced that an Act of Congress can amend the Constitution and because I am uncer *741 tain whether the congressional enactment before us was truly “ ‘needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment,’” I write separately to explain why I join the Court’s judgment. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 458 (1976) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641, 651 (1966)).
The plain language of the Eleventh Amendment poses no barrier to the adjudication of this case because respondents are citizens of Nevada. The sovereign immunity defense asserted by Nevada is based on what I regard as the second Eleventh Amendment, which has its source in judge-made common law, rather than constitutional text. Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U. S. 1, 23 (1989) (Stevens, J., concurring). As long as it clearly expresses its intent, Congress may abrogate that common-law defense pursuant to its power to regulate commerce “among the several States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8. The family-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is unquestionably a valid exercise of a power that is “broad enough to support federal legislation regulating the terms and conditions of state employment.” Fitzpatrick, 427 U. S., at 458 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). * Accordingly, Nevada’s sovereign immunity defense is without merit.
See Stevens, “Two Questions About Justice,” 2003 U. Ill. L. Rev. 821 (discussing Fitzpatrick).