California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra
| California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra | |
|---|---|
|
|
| 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) |
| 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) is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court 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 §12945(b)(2), which requires employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy, is consistent with federal law.
An amendment to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act §12945(b)(2) passed in 1978 required that employers must grant a job-protected reasonable leave of absence for employees disabled by pregnancy. 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 doctor and upon her return, was to be told that the person that she had trained was given the job. She filed suit alleging violations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of pregnancy in employment. Cal Fed argued that the California statute requiring employers to grant leave for pregnant employees constituted discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Marshall J held that the California statute was not preempted. Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor concurred. Marshall J said the following.
As a third alternative, in those areas where Congress has not completely displaced state regulation, federal law may nonetheless pre-empt state law to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law. Such a conflict occurs either because "compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-143, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963), or because the state law stands "as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 404, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941)....
...
Wikipedia