California Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Guerra

California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra
Supreme Court of the United States
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
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun Lewis F. Powell Jr. · John P. Stevens Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
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) 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 in 12945(b)(2), which requires employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy, is consistent with federal law.

Facts

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.

Judgment

Marshall J held that the California statute was not preempted. Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor concurred. Scalia wrote a separate concurrence. White J (joined by Rehnquist, Powell J) dissented.

See also

• US labor law

External links

• California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra at FindLaw.com.