Court Upholds Maternity Leave, Job Guarantee

Women in California must be given four months of pregnancy leave and be guaranteed they will get their jobs back, a federal appellate court ruled Tuesday in overturning a Los Angeles judge’s decision that a state law discriminated against men.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the earlier decision by Chief U.S. District Judge Manuel Real “defies common sense, misinterprets case law and flouts” federal statutes.

The appeals court declared that because pregnancy is a condition “unique to women,” it is not illegal sex discrimination to grant them benefits that are not mandated for other conditions.

The case centers on Lillian Garland, who was employed as a PBX operator-receptionist at California Federal Savings & Loan in Los Angeles when she took pregnancy leave from January through April, 1982. She claimed that Cal Fed would not give her back her job when she was ready to return.

Subsequently, the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing filed a complaint against Cal Fed, charging that the financial institution violated a law passed by the California Legislature in 1978 allowing women to have up to four months off for pregnancy leave and requiring that they be given the same or a similar job if they want to return to work.

Cal Fed, joined by the Merchants & Manufacturers Assn. and the California Chamber of Commerce, took the issue to federal court, where Real ruled in their favor 13 months ago.

Real declared that the state law was in conflict with federal statutes barring discrimination on medical benefits based on sex.

Judge Warren Ferguson, writing the unanimous opinion for the three-judge appeals court panel, cited the “lack of logic” to that argument by stating:

“Attributing to Congress an intent that employers or states must ignore pregnancy completely when fashioning their disability policies would be as absurd as discovering a congressional intent that states or employers must completely ignore prostatitis on pain of violating federal law barring sex discrimination.”

The appeal court’s ruling was applauded by the National Organization for Women and by some labor officials, but was a disappointment to those who opposed the law that Real overturned last year. Pamela Hemminger, the attorney representing Cal Fed, declined to comment on Tuesday’s ruling “until we have had time to fully analyze the content of the opinion.” She said a decision probably will be made later this week on whether to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Garland, who was reached working on the switchboard at Cal Fed’s Los Angeles office, said, “I am very relieved that this ruling came out in our favor. I thank God for that because I think it helps all women who will find themselves in this situation.”

Garland and officials for Cal Fed differed on what happened when she tried to get her job back in April, 1982.

“They just did not have a job they thought I could do at the location where I had worked,” Garland said. “They did offer something at offices out in Granada Hills and a place like El Monte, but I had no car and they knew that.”

But Deborah von Ehrenberg, Cal Fed’s corporate manager of equal employment opportunity planning, said, “Right from the beginning we did make available to her other jobs, such as teller, but she chose to wait for the job she had to open up again at the same location. Finally, she came back in November after ending her leave in April.”

Von Ehrenberg said Cal Fed has had little difficulty working out arrangements with other employees returing from maternity or disability leaves. Citing a company study covering the three-year period of 1982-84, she said that 99% of the 1,200 people who took leave during that time returned to work for the firm. She said that about 20% of that group had taken maternity leave.

Louis Custrini, vice president for communications of the Merchants & Manufacturers Assn., said of the ruling: “Our immediate reaction is that the (appeals) court has dealt what we believe is a devastating blow to both employers and employees.”

He said the organization is “studying its next course of action” and “will be in discussion with Cal Fed on that.”

But Sandra Farha, California president of the National Organization for Women, said NOW is “very pleased and encouraged” by Tuesday’s ruling in favor of women “who have to make the choice between parenting and their jobs.”

Also happy with Tuesday’s decision was William Robertson, executive secretary of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.