AJC Joins In Amicus Brief To Overturn Ruling Of District Court On Issue Of Family And Medical Leave Act

American Jewish Committee
Thursday, 17 September 1998

The American Jewish Committee has joined in an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in support of a woman denied protection under the Family Medical Leave Act.

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), adopted by Congress in 1993, requires certain public- and private-sector employers to provide minimum amounts of unpaid leave to employees with certain family-care and medical needs, and bars those employers from retaliating against workers who take such leave.

The Act was the product of eight years of congressional investigation into the discrimination women and men faced in the workplace as a result of pervasive gender stereotypes concerning work and family roles. In tailoring FMLA, Congress took into careful consideration the "legitimate interests of employers," examining at great length the costs that the legislation would impose on employers as well as other employer concerns.

In this case -- Thomson v. Ohio State University Hospital -- Mary Thomson, an administrative assistant at Ohio State University Hospital, was forced to resign when she was denied unpaid leave to care for her ailing father. The district court ruled that in adopting FMLA, Congress had adopted legislation that was broader than necessary to solve the problem it had identified. They argued that already existing anti-discrimination and remedial statutes made adoption of FMLA unnecessary. Further, the district court ruled that FMLA imposed undue financial burdens on state employers.

In its brief, the AJC asserts that "in ruling that Congress misjudged the need for new legislation and adopted a statute that was broader than necessary, the district court overstepped its bounds. In its eight years of deliberations, Congress exhaustively documented how employers, including state employers, commonly denied women and men equal workplace opportunities on the basis of stereotypes about 'proper' work and family roles. Congress found that existing employment practices both disadvantaged women who had caregiving responsibilities and discriminated against men who sought to take time off for family caregiving. These gender inequities persisted despite existing laws that prohibited unequal treatment. Based on its comprehensive research, Congress carefully tailored the FMLA to solve the problems it had identified while accommodating the interests of employers and avoiding the creation of new incentives to discriminate."

The brief continues: "For the district court to disregard this extensive legislative record -- and to replace Congress's considered judgment with its own speculation about what other policies Congress could have adopted -- was clear, reversible error….In addition, the court's unsupported assertion regarding the costs of the FMLA simply ignore Congress's findings, borne out in practice, that states' compliance costs would be minimal."

Jeffrey Sinensky, AJC National Legal Director, commented: "The district court's decision struck a blow to Congress' power under the Fourteenth Amendment to enact legislation enforcing equal protection under the law. In enacting FMLA, Congress sought to ensure that all employees -- both private and public -- may take leave for compelling family reasons on a gender-neutral basis. Congress has the right and the authority to use any means at its disposal to combat gender-based discrimination. We have every confidence that the court of appeals will so rule."

For more information, or to contact American Jewish Committee, see their website at: www.ajc.org