Court to Rule on Special Benefits for Pregnancy

The Supreme Court, entering a widely debated sex discrimination dispute, agreed Monday to decide whether states may force employers to give pregnant women special disability leave and additional benefits that other workers do not receive.

The court will review a California law, enacted in 1978, that guarantees women up to four months of unpaid maternity leave and reinstatement to the same job unless there is a demonstrable “business necessity” for not doing so. Such benefits are not required for other employees.

Impact on Business

The case could have a substantial impact on American businesses. Three other states--Montana, Connecticut and Massachusetts--have enacted similar laws, and other states may follow suit if such legislation is upheld. Some proponents have urged the adoption of a national policy requiring employers to grant maternity leaves.

But an unlikely coalition of business groups and some women’s organizations, joined by the Reagan Administration, has attacked such laws, contending that they conflict with federal statutes requiring equal--but not special--treatment for pregnant workers.

The Montana law, which requires employers to grant “reasonable” leaves of absence for pregnancy, is being challenged in another case, in which the justices have taken no action.

In that case, the Justice Department, at the invitation of the court, filed a brief urging that the state law be overturned because it conflicts with provisions of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act requiring that pregnant women “be treated the same” as other workers “for all employment-related purposes.” The federal law, enacted in 1978, was aimed at preventing employers from firing workers who become pregnant.

A friend-of-the-court brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women Legal Defense Fund and other groups said that, although laws like California’s might seem beneficial to women, they could cause resentment among other workers and encourage employers to resist hiring women because of the added costs of special benefits.

The California case began in 1983, when the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing brought an action against California Federal Savings & Loan Assn., seeking the immediate reinstatement of Lillian Garland, a receptionist who had been on maternity leave. The company routinely grants at least six months’ leave for all disabilities--including pregnancy--but does not guarantee reinstatement.

California Federal filed suit and obtained a ruling from a U.S. district judge striking down the state law as discriminatory against men and conflicting with the federal statute. But a federal appeals panel in San Francisco restored the law, finding that it was permissible under federal law for the state to grant pregnant women benefits that other workers do not receive.

Reverse Bias Charged

The company appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court (California Federal vs. Guerra, 85-494), saying the law was a form of sex discrimination that unfairly granted women special treatment. Women should not be granted special rights denied to men who suffer disabilities, the company said. The law represented “unvarnished reverse discrimination,” it said.

State attorneys defended the law, saying it was an allowable means of ensuring that pregnant women “do not suffer employment disadvantages which men never face.” Congress, in enacting the law, did not mean to prevent states from granting additional job protections to pregnant women, the state argued.

In other action, the justices, taking up a clash between international environmental concerns and the President’s foreign policy-making authority, agreed to decide whether the United States must impose sanctions against Japan’s fishing industry for exceeding international whaling quotas (Japan Whaling Assn. vs. American Cetacean Society, 85-955).

At issue is a federal appeals court ruling last August requiring the Reagan Administration to reduce by 50% the amount of fish Japan may take from U.S. waters--an action that could cost Japanese fishing interests $1.8 billion. The court said that federal law required such a penalty because Japan continued to kill substantial numbers of the sperm whales in the North Pacific in violation of restrictions imposed by the International Whaling Commission.

300-Year-Old Industry

Environmental groups praised the appellate decision, saying it could save the fast-diminishing sperm whale population. But the Administration appealed the ruling because it overturned an executive agreement between the United States and Japan that gave the Japanese until 1988 to close down their 300-year-old whaling industry.

The high court agreed to expedite the case, assuring a ruling by early summer. But Russell Wild, a spokesman for the environmental group Greenpeace, expressed disappointment with the justices’ action, saying that, if the Administration’s appeal is upheld, it would mean the deaths of 5,000 whales and possibly “the extinction” of several species.

The justices announced also that they will hear an unusual Colorado case that could determine whether incriminating statements by a mentally disturbed defendant may be used in court (Colorado vs. Connelly, 85-660).

At issue is a confession by a former mental patient who approached police officers in Denver, admitted he had killed a 14-year-old girl and then led officers to the scene of the crime. The man, who was charged with murder, later told a psychiatrist that “the voice of God” had told him to confess or commit suicide. The Colorado Supreme Court held the confession inadmissible, finding that the defendant’s statement was not “voluntary” because it was not “the product of a rational intellect and a free will.” The ruling caused an uproar in the state.

Justices Criticize Court

In another unusual aspect to the case, Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, issued a memorandum objecting to the justices’ revision of the way prosecutors stated the legal issues in the case in their appeal to the high court. Such “injudicious efforts to assist prosecutors”--combined with the court’s inclination to hear criminal appeals from the state rather than the defense--gives the impression that the court is “an arm of the prosecution,” Brennan said.

The justices agreed also to conduct an extensive review of state and federal election laws. In one case (Tashjian vs. Republican Party, 85-766), the court will decide whether a political party has a constitutional right to open its state primary to independent voters.

Thirty-eight states, including California, conduct closed primaries.