California Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Guerra
1987 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about California Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Guerra?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
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.
Quick Facts California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra, Argued October 8, 1986 Decided January 13, 1987 ...
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) 107 S. Ct. 683; 93 L. Ed. 2d 613 |
Case history | |
Prior | 758 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1985) |
Holding | |
§ 12945(b)(2) is not preempted by Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, because it is not inconsistent with the purposes of Title VII, nor does it require the doing of an act that is unlawful under Title VII. | |
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 |
Close