This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The base question is whether a state employee is allowed to recover damages from the state entity that employs him by invoking one of the provisions of a federal statute that, in express terms, seeks to abrogate the States' immunity from suits for damages. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 requires employers, including state employers, to grant unpaid leave for self-care for a serious medical condition, provided other statutory requisites are met, particularly requirements that the total amount of annual leave taken under all the Act's provisions does not exceed a stated maximum. The Act entitles eligible employees to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave per year. P was employed by D. When P requested sick leave, he was informed he would be terminated if he did not resign. P then sued D in the United States District Court alleging violation of the FMLA by failing to provide him with self-care leave. The District Court dismissed the suit on sovereign immunity. The District Court concluded the FMLA's self-care provision did not validly abrogate D's immunity from suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the self-care provision was not directed at an identified pattern of gender-based discrimination and was not congruent and proportional to any pattern of sex-based discrimination on the part of States. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.