[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-419168-105":59,"doc-detail-419168-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","pregnancy-rights-debated-at-supreme-court","PREGNANCY RIGHTS DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT","","PREGNANCY RIGHTS DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT reports the U.S. Supreme Court’s discussion of a California requirement that employers provide unpaid pregnancy leave and reinstate women to their jobs. Cal Fed challenged the state law as conflicting with federal equal-protection principles, while California’s deputy attorney general argued job-protected pregnancy leave prevents “disastrous effects.” The article recounts related background on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Civil Rights Act, and includes comments from multiple justices and advocates.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":45,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/religion-spirituality/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/pregnancy-rights-debated-at-supreme-court/419168/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/pregnancy-rights-debated-at-supreme-court/419168.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Genevieve","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-15","2026-09-28",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":34},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What did the U.S. Supreme Court debate regarding pregnancy leave?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It debated the fate of a California law requiring employers to give women unpaid pregnancy leave and reinstate them to their jobs, in a case that could affect pregnancy policies in multiple states.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why did Cal Fed argue against the California law?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Cal Fed argued the statute violates federal law on equal treatment, contending that pregnancy-based special protection conflicts with the federal mandate of equal protection.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What position did California’s deputy attorney general take?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"She argued that pregnancy without job protection can have “disastrous effects” and that the California law prevents women from having to choose between keeping their jobs and having a child.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},419168,1790969164,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":44,"category_name":45,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":34,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":34,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},1374391974585,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Vo1。14,No。195  \n             Thursday,October 9,1986  \n98!  \n# PREGNANCY RIGHTS DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT\n\nThe U.S.Supreme Court yesterday debated the fate of a California law requiringemployers to give women unpaid pregnancy leave and reinstate them to thelrjobs,in a case that could affect pregnancy policies in at least 10 states.  \nTrying to overturn the law,the California Federal Savings and Loan Associa-tion,or Cal Fed,argued the statute violates federal law requiring equaltreatment of men and women regardless of pregnancy.  \n\"The question is whether the federal mandate of equal protection prevalls overthe state mandate of special protection,\"Theodore 01son,Cal Fed's lawyer,told the Court.  The federal law is meant to banish the idea that women needspecial treatment,he said.\"That kind of stereotype is damaging to women.\"  \nBut Marian Johnston,deputy attorney general of California,argued that preg-nancy without job protection can have \"disastrous effects\"on women.With thestate law,\"women don't have to choose between keeping thefr jobs and having achild,\"she said.\"The male employee is going to keep his job if he has achild.The California law …just removes pregnancy disability as a factor\"in the ability of men and women to keep thelr jobs.  \nTeachers Speak UpThe California Teachers Association filed a brief echo-ing the state's arguments for the law,which is simllar to those in Montana,Connecticut and Massachusetts,according to Kathleen Bonk,director of the NOWLegal Defense and Education Fund.In addition,Hawaii,Kansas,I1linols,NewHampshire,Ohio,Washington and po8sibly other states have similar regulationsor policies,Bonk said.Montana's law is before the Court in another case。  \nYesterday's case,California Federa1 Savings and Loan v.Guerra(55 USLW 3053),started in 1982,when receptionist Lillian Garland had a Cesarean section andtook three months'disability leave.Cal Fed replaced her and would not rehireher for another seven months,after she had been out of work for 10 months.  \nCalifornia law gives women the right to take a \"reas onable\"period of unpaidleave--but not more than four months--for pregnancy,birth and related condi-tions.The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964,which bars public and privatesector job bias on the basis of sex and other factors,also takes account ofpregnancy;Congress in 1978 added the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to the 1964law,making discrimination on the basis of pregnancy a type of sex bias.  \nSeveral justices yesterday noted that employers could obey both the federal andthe state laws by offering disability leave for workers with other conditions(more)  \nOctober 9,1986  \n# PREGNANCY RIGHTS DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT(Cont.)\n\nas well as pregnancy.“Maybe they have to provide[leave]to everybody,andthat may be very expensive,which may make it a silly 1aw,but that doesn'tmake it unconstitutional,\"said Justice Antonin Scalia.Justices Sandra DayO'Connor and John Paul Stevens questioned him along the same line.  \nNoting that the U.S.Justice Department is backing Cal Fed,01son called thatargument an“end run“--a way for the Court to avoid extending the state law inits ruling while achieving the same expansive effect.  \nU.s.courts are\"not so free to rewrite state law in order to avoid conflictswith federal law,particularly where,as here,the extension would requlre adramatic increase in the s cope of the state 1aw”and“a several-fold increasein cost,\"Justice argued in a friend-of-the-court brief.NOW and the AmericanCivil Liberties Union said the Court must take that route,though,because itis less drastic than erasing a state law.  \nJohnston noted that while California has not mandated equal treatment on thebasis of disability,regardless of who is sus ceptible to various disabilities,neither has the U.S.Congress.However,she noted,a woman disabled by a heartattack does not enjoy any greater leave privlleges than a man does.  \n\"Approximately 85 percent of working women will become pregnant at some pointduring thefr work","cbCaij64P5YSYQes","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaij64P5YSYQes","pdf",1833499,"English","# PREGNANCY RIGHTS DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT\n# COURT DEBATES EXTENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES FOR AGENCY PROCEEDINGS\n# COLLEGE PRESIDENTS DEBATE SCOPE","[{\"question\":\"What did the U.S. Supreme Court debate regarding pregnancy leave?\",\"answer\":\"It debated the fate of a California law requiring employers to give women unpaid pregnancy leave and reinstate them to their jobs, in a case that could affect pregnancy policies in multiple states.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did Cal Fed argue against the California law?\",\"answer\":\"Cal Fed argued the statute violates federal law on equal treatment, contending that pregnancy-based special protection conflicts with the federal mandate of equal protection.\"},{\"question\":\"What position did California’s deputy attorney general take?\",\"answer\":\"She argued that pregnancy without job protection can have “disastrous effects” and that the California law prevents women from having to choose between keeping their jobs and having a child.\"}]","PREGNANCY RIGHTS DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT | PDF",1790615951,18]