The Supreme Court issued its decision in Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals on March 21, 2012, holding that state employees could not sue their employer for violations of the Family Medical Leave Act. The FMLA allows employees (subject to a minimum hours/minimum employees criteria) up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave for the birth or adoption of a child, or for their own serious health condition or that of a family member. The leave provision has extended to state employers in the past. At issue in the Coleman case was an employee who was terminated after asking for 10 days of leave for his own serious medical condition. The State of Maryland argued that it could not be sued by Coleman for damages relating to the termination under the doctrine of sovereign immunity established by the 11th Amendment and the Court agreed, at least with respect to the self-care provision, by a vote of 5-4. Part of the majority’s rationale in so holding was that because there is no "widespread evidence of sex discrimination or sex stereotyping in the administration of sick leave." The dissent in the Coleman decision raised significant concerns and pointedly noted that the FMLA, in its entirety, "is directed at sex discrimination," and was "originally envisioned as a way to guarantee -- without singling out women or pregnancy -- that pregnant women would not lose their jobs when they gave birth. The self-care provision achieves that aim."
The holding in Coleman seems contrary to a 2003 Supreme Court decision involving FMLA and the State of Nevada, which held that state employees can sue under the FMLA provision related to care for ill family members. In that decision, the Court wrote that Congress had the authority to override states' immunity to "protect the right to be free from gender-based discrimination in the workplace" by eliminating "the pervasive sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is women's work."