老澳门开奖结果

Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the most significant case about the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) and sex discrimination in employment since the landmark 2003 case Nevada Dep鈥檛 of Human Resources v. Hibbs. The case is Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals and, like Hibbs, it concerns the constitutionality of a provision of the FMLA, signed by in his first act in office in 1993.

The FMLA contains a 鈥渟elf-care鈥� provision that provides job security to eligible employees, including public sector workers, who may take 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year to recover from their own serious health conditions. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether state employees may sue their employers the same way employees of private companies can, if they are improperly denied FMLA leave to recover from an illness. Generally, states have heightened immunity from lawsuits, but the Constitution allows Congress to pass laws permitting suits against the government where necessary to protect constitutional rights 鈥� like the right to be free from sex discrimination. In Hibbs, the Supreme Court held that the family care provisions of the FMLA 鈥� which allow workers to take time off to care for a new baby or sick family member 鈥� are an appropriate congressional response to a long, sorry history of states engaging in unconstitutional sex discrimination by limiting women鈥檚 employment opportunities based on the stereotype that women should stay home and care for children, rather than engage in paid work.

At first blush, the issue of the validity of the FMLA鈥檚 self-care doesn鈥檛 appear to be about sex discrimination. Mr. Coleman sought to take leave to recover from his own serious medical condition. The history of the FMLA, however, reveals that the self-care provision was passed with the express purpose of providing job security for women who take unpaid leave to recover from childbirth. For example, the Senate report on the bill confirms that the self-care provision 鈥渨ould ensure that new mothers don鈥檛 lose their jobs when they temporarily cannot work due to pregnancy- and childbirth-related disability.鈥� Congress passed the FMLA to address decades of discrimination by employers, including public employers, against pregnant workers. The 老澳门开奖结果 and joined an amicus brief explaining this history.

Maryland argues that the self-care provision has nothing to do with sex discrimination, and it points to the use of gender-neutral language in the law for support. But Congress made the provision gender-neutral to discourage employers from discriminating against women of childbearing age in hiring and promotion based on the assumption that they would get pregnant and use pregnancy leave.

So what鈥檚 at stake here? An unfavorable ruling would disproportionately affect women state employees. Women make up at the state and local level. It鈥檚 no secret that the recession has made job security even more important than before. In , it is crucial that women workers know that if their employer violates their right to job security, they have recourse in the courts, whether the boss is a company or a state. The FMLA self-care provision is an important step toward eliminating sex discrimination 鈥� let鈥檚 keep moving forward, not taking steps back.

Learn more about the workers' rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .