Court Questions Jobless Pay After Pregnancy

States are under no special legal obligation to pay unemployment benefits to women who lose their jobs after taking maternity leave, the Supreme Court ruled today.

The court said a federal law barring discrimination based on pregnancy in unemployment benefit payments bans states from singling out pregnancy for unfavorable treatment only. The law does not mandate preferential treatment for pregnant workers, the court said.

The 8-0 decision is a defeat for Linda Wimberly, who was refused unemployment benefits after being denied reinstatement as a Kansas City, Mo., department store cashier when she wanted to return from maternity leave.

Just last week the court, in interpreting a separate federal law, ruled that states may require employers to give pregnant workers job protections not available to other employees.

California Law Upheld

The justices in that decision upheld a California law requiring employers to grant unpaid leaves of absence and insure reinstatement for women whose pregnancies leave them unable to work--even if leaves are not granted for any other disability.

But today the court said no such special protection was intended by Congress when it passed the Federal Unemployment Tax Act of 1978.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the court, said: “Congress intended only to prohibit states from singling out pregnancy for unfavorable treatment. . . . If a state adopts a neutral rule that incidentally disqualifies pregnant or formerly pregnant claimants as part of a larger group, the neutral application of that rule” is legal.

Missouri law disqualifies anyone from collecting unemployment benefits for leaving work “voluntarily” for reasons not job-related.

‘Good Cause’ Leaves

Most states include leaves of absence taken because of pregnancy in those “good cause” leaves that do not disqualify a worker from collecting unemployment if later denied reinstatement.

In another ruling today, the court gave a sweeping interpretation to federal voting rights law in ruling that a city may be barred from annexing all-white or undeveloped areas when it refuses to annex neighboring areas where blacks live.

The justices, in a 6-3 decision, ruled against the city of Pleasant Grove, Ala., a practically all-white suburb of Birmingham.

“Common sense teaches that (Pleasant Grove) cannot indefinitely stave off the influx of black residents and voters,” said Justice Byron R. White for the court.