|
Volume 1 Number 4 SEX DISCRIMINATION CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
The Justice Department is supporting the position of employers in two precedent setting sex discrimination cases before the Supreme Court.
Justice 0pposes State Benefits for Pregnant Workers
The Justice Department, reversing the position it took in a case ten years ago, has sided with employers in a lawsuit involving state required benefits for pregnant workers. The case, California Savings and Loan Association v. Guerra, 758 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. granted 54 U.S.L.W. 3460 (U.S. Jan. 13, 1986) (No. 851194), was brought by California Savings and Loan, after one of its employees filed a complaint with a California state agency alleging that the bank had not allowed tier an unpaid pregnancy leave as required by California state law. The bank attempted to avoid complying with the state law by asserting in federal court that the California statute mandating job reinstatement after a four month unpaid pregnancy leave conflicts with the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 2000 e (k) (the PDA). The federal law, which was enacted to put an end to rampant job discrimination against pregnant women, provides that women disabled by pregnancy shall be treated the same for employment purposes as all other employees similar in their ability or inability to work.
Employer organizations including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have sided with the bank, arguing that special treatment for pregnant women is not lawful under the federal law requiring equal treatment. Feminist groups have split on the issue, with some groups, mostly on the west coast, supporting the California law. These groups argue that, because only women become pregnant, inadequate disability leave disproportionately affects women and is therefore discriminatory. Other groups, including the National Organization for Women, the Women's Legal Defense Fund, the National Women's Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, contend that there is no conflict between the state and federal laws because an employer can comply with both. According to these groups, if the Court finds a conflict, the proper remedy is for the Court to extend the statute to cover all temporarily disabled workers. The Justice Department opposes extension, taking a position contrary to one it espoused in a 1976 case involving state required benefits for female workers. See Memorandum for United States as Amicus Curiae, Homemakers Inc. v. Division of Industrial Welfare, 509 F.2d 20 Oth Cir. 1974) cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1063 (1976). The Justice Department's current opposition to extension of benefits is expressed in a brief it filed in a Montana case involving a statute similar to the California pregnancy leave statute. See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Miller Wohl Co. v. Commissioners of Labor and Industry, 692 P.2d 1243 (Mont. 1984), jurisdictional statement filed, 53 U.S.L.W. 2367 (U.S. Mar. 27, 1985) (No. 841545).
The Cal. Fed. case is part of a larger debate over pregnancy in the workplace. The federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act overturned an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. (1976), that pregnancy discrimination is not sex discrimination within the meaning of Title VII. But the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires only that pregnant workers be treated the same as other employees. In the absence of state laws requiring benefits, employers, like the bank in the Cal. Fed. case, who choose to provide inadequate benefits for all workers, may do so without violating the PDA. A bill currently in Congress, H.R. 4300, The Parental and Medical Leave Act of 1986 would remedy this problem by requiring all employers to provide up to twenty-six weeks of unpaid leave for all temporarily disabled employees. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the Cal. Fed. case next fall. Along with Cal. Fed., the court may consider Miller Wohl, the Montana case involving a similar statute.
  
|
