California Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Guerra
| California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 8, 1986 Decided January 13, 1987 | |
| Full case name | California Federal Savings & Loan Association et al. v. Guerra, Director, Department of Fair Employment and Housing, et al. |
| Citations | 479 U.S. 272 (more) |
| Holding | |
| The California Fair Employment and Housing Act in 12945(b)(2), which requires employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy, is consistent with federal law. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Marshall,, joined by Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor (Parts I, II, III-B, III-C, IV) |
| Concurrence | Stevens |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Dissent | White, joined by Rehnquist, Powell |
| Laws applied | |
| Cal. Gov't Code § 12945(b)(2), Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 | |
California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case 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 in 12945(b)(2), which requires employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy, is consistent with federal law.
Background
An amendment to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act 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 field 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.
External links
- California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra at FindLaw.com.
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |