California Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Guerra, 13 January 1987.
The plaintiff employer and other similar employers challenged the constitutionality of a California law that required employers to provide female employees with up to four months unpaid pregnancy leave with reinstatement in the same or a substantially similar job.  They claimed that the law was preempted by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the 1964 Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, required absolute neutrality in the treatment of pregnant employees with respect to other employees.  Their position was that the California law discriminated in favor of pregnant employees. The Court rejected their claim.  It held that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was "a floor beneath which pregnancy disability benefits may not drop--not a ceiling above which they may not rise," and that the California law shared a common goal with the federal law of providing women with full rights in the workforce without denying them the right to full participation in family life. It ruled that there was nothing in the law that prevented employers from complying with the law and Title VII.
D000569:Americas; D002140:California; D019049:Developed Countries; D004467:Economics; D004651:Employment; D016656:Family Planning Policy; D006280:Health Workforce; D007603:Jurisprudence; D009656:North America; D011247:Pregnancy; D011287:Prejudice; D011640:Public Policy; D012098:Reproduction; D012940:Social Problems; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors; D014481:United States; D014933:Women's Rights
Americas; California; Court Decision; Developed Countries; Economic Factors; Family Policy; Human Resources; Labor Force--legal aspects; Labor Force--women; Maternity Benefits--legal aspects; Microeconomic Factors; North America; Northern America; Policy; Pregnancy--legal aspects; Reproduction; Sex Discrimination--legal aspects; Social Discrimination; Social Policy; Social Problems; Socioeconomic Factors; United States; Women's Status--legal aspects