Puneet Varma (Editor)

California Federal Savings and Loan Association v Guerra

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Citations
  
479 U.S. 272 (more)

Concurrence
  
Scalia

Concurrence
  
Stevens

End date
  
1987

Full case name
  
California Federal Savings & Loan Association et al. v. Guerra, Director, Department of Fair Employment and Housing, et al.

Majority
  
Marshall,, joined by Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor (Parts I, II, III-B, III-C, IV)

Dissent
  
White, joined by Rehnquist, Powell

Similar
  
Bradwell v Illinois, Reed v Reed, Pierce v Society of Sisters, Meritor Savings Bank v Vi

California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra, 479 US 272 (1987) is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court about whether a state may require employers to provide greater pregnancy benefits than required by federal law, as well as the ability to require pregnancy benefits to women without similar benefits to men. The court held that The California Fair Employment and Housing Act §12945(b)(2), which requires employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy, is consistent with federal law.

Contents

Facts

An amendment to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act §12945(b)(2) passed in 1978 required that employers must grant a job-protected reasonable leave of absence for employees disabled by pregnancy. Lillian Garland had worked for California Federal Savings and Loan for about 4 years before needing to take time out to have her baby. She ultimately trained the woman to take her place during her time off as indicated by her doctor and upon her return, was to be told that the person that she had trained was given the job. She filed suit alleging violations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of pregnancy in employment. Cal Fed argued that the California statute requiring employers to grant leave for pregnant employees constituted discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Judgment

Marshall J held that the California statute was not preempted. Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor concurred. Marshall J said the following.

Scalia J wrote a separate concurrence.

White J (joined by Rehnquist J, Powell J) dissented.

References

California Federal Savings and Loan Association v Guerra Wikipedia