California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
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

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 Dr. 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 Pregancy Discrimination Act of 1978.

External links


<templatestyles src="Asbox/styles.css"></templatestyles>