![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Seal_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Third_Circuit.svg/640px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Third_Circuit.svg.png&w=640&q=50)
Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development, 226 F.3d 223 (3rd Cir. 2000)[1] was a U.S. legal case about whether states may be subjected to money damages for failing to comply with the family care provision in the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). A decision by the lower circuit court of appeals in favor of the state was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Quick Facts Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development, Court ...
Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |
Full case name | David D. Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, et al |
Argued | June 30, 2000 |
Decided | August 30, 2000 |
Citation | 226 F.3d 223 (3rd Cir. 2000) |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Samuel Alito, Theodore McKee, John P. Fullam (E.D. Pa.) |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Alito, joined by McKee, Fullam |
Laws applied | |
Family and Medical Leave Act | |
Overruled by | |
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003) |
Close