Garland's Bouquet

• Share

When she left her work as a receptionist at the California Federal Savings and Loan Association office in West Los Angeles to have her first baby, in 1982, Lillian Garland figured she would simply take a short, unpaid disability leave and return to her job, a right guaranteed by state law. But there were complications. Garland's baby girl was delivered by Cesarean section, and her doctor prescribed a three-month leave. When she returned to Cal Fed, Garland found that her position had been filled. "I didn't know what to do," she says. Unemployed and unable to pay her $550-a-month rent, Garland was eventually evicted from her apartment. She and her daughter moved into a friend's living room. Shortly after, she agreed to let the father take care of the baby until Garland found a job. By the spring of 1983, he had sued for and received custody.

Angered by this string of events, Garland filed a complaint against Cal Fed, citing a 1978 California law that requires employers with 15 or more workers to offer up to four months' unpaid leave for pregnant women with the promise of the same or a comparable job upon their return. Cal Fed responded with its own suit in federal court against the California law, arguing that it conflicted with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, a measure passed by Congress in 1978 that outlaws discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. The California statute, claimed Cal Fed, discriminates against men by requiring special benefits that are available only to women.

Last week, in a landmark decision for working mothers, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the California law by a 6-to-3 vote, ruling that a state is permitted to require an employer to provide special job protection for workers temporarily disabled by pregnancy. Realistic in its scope and modest in its rhetoric, the decision could have enormous impact on the growing social dilemma caused by the influx of women into the job market over the past 25 years: the heavy burden of holding down a job and having children at the same time. "It's a wonderful victory," said Feminist Betty Friedan, who lost her first job when she became pregnant. "It says that equality does not mean women have to fit the male model." The ruling opens up the possibility of radical -- and potentially costly -- changes in the employment practices of American business. Says Virginia Lamp, an attorney for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: "The ruling is disappointing and a shock. It was a victory for proponents of special treatment for women in the workplace."

Writing the main opinion, Justice Thurgood Marshall concluded that the California law did not violate the federal law or discriminate against men, as Cal Fed claimed. Rather it "promotes equal employment opportunity" by allowing "women, as well as men, to have families without losing their jobs." The Justice noted that the California statute "does not compel employers to treat pregnant workers better than other disabled employees; it merely establishes benefits that employers must, at a minimum, provide to pregnant workers. Employers are free to give comparable benefits to other disabled employees."