Opinion ID: 2041888
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: SICK (DISABILITY) LEAVE POLICY (1970-1972 Regulations).

Text: Plaintiffs next attack trial court's holding to the effect provisions contained in the 1970 and 1972 regulations which preclude sick (disability) pay to employees while absent due to pregnancy are sexually discriminatory. In support thereof it is argued pregnancy may be treated differently from other disabling conditions which qualify an employee for sick (disability) pay because pregnancy is voluntary. Illustratively, cancer, heart ailments, sclerosis or diabetes are said to be involuntary. But we find no viability in any such differentiation. Several courts have accordingly so held. Gilbert v. General Electric Company, 375 F.Supp. 367, 381-382 (E.D.Va.1974), thus held the denial of sick pay benefits for childbirth-related disabilities constituted sex discrimination in violation of Title VII: G.E.'s contention that because of the voluntary nature of pregnancy they are insulated from the obligation to pay disability benefits to female employees absent from work due to pregnancy-related disabilities loses much viability in light of its policy of providing disability benefits to its male employees for all disability, including cosmetic surgery, disabilities arising from attempted suicides, etc. While pregnancy is unique to women, parenthood is common to both sexes, yet under G.E.'s policy, it is only their female employees who must, if they wish to avoid a total loss of company induced income, forego the right and privilege of this natural state. (citation omitted). Indeed, under G.E.'s policy the consequence of a female employee exercising her innate right to bear a child may well result in economic disaster, as in the case of at least one of the witnesses who appeared before the Court. No such consequences would befall a male employee who chose to subject himself to a selective operation, such as a vasectomy or cosmetic surgery. Thus, women are required to undergo the economic hardship of the disability which arises from their participation in the procreative experience. The disability is undisputed and inextricably sex-linked. To isolate such a disability for less favorable treatment in a scheme purportedly designed to relieve the economic burden of physical incapacity is discrimination by sex. That such is discriminatory by reason of sex is self evident. G.E.'s contention that the voluntary nature of pregnancy justifies, under Title VII, its treatment of that condition as challenged, must fail. While it is true that women may, under certain conditions, resort to an abortion (citation omitted), it cannot be reasonably argued that Congress in its enactment of Title VII ever intended that an intended beneficiary of that Act forego a fundamental right, such as a woman's right to bear children, as a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the benefits of employment free of discrimination. The question of voluntariness is not really the issue. The fact is that the defendant's policy penalizes plaintiffs and members of their class for being women and suffering disabilities to which they alone are inherently susceptible, and this is discriminatory. In Buckley v. Coyle Public School System, 476 F.2d 92, 94-95 (10th Cir. 1973), the voluntary-involuntary distinction was held to be unplausible: We start with the most obvious of the alleged violations and that is the charge of discrimination based on sex. The trial court's attempted distinction between discriminatory and non-discriminatory regulations as being whether the condition involved is one which was involuntary must be rejected. The fact, if it be a fact, that pregnancy is a voluntary status really has nothing to do with the question. The point is that the regulation penalizes the feminine school teacher for being a woman and, therefore, it must be condemned on that ground. To the same effect is this statement in Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 372 F.Supp. at 1158: Because pregnancy is a natural, expectable, and societally necessary condition, which is certain to occur in a statistically predictable number of women in the labor force, we see no merit in Defendant's argument that it may be excluded from equality of treatment in conditions and benefits of employment because it is a voluntary condition. See also Sale v. Waverly-Shell Rock Board of Education, 390 F.Supp. 784, U.S.D.C., N.D.Iowa E.D. (1975); Scott v. Opelika City Schools, 63 F.R.D. 144, 147-148 (M.D.Ala. 1974); 23 Drake L.Rev. 806 (1974). Furthermore, the 1972 Session of the Sixty-Fourth General Assembly, ch. 1031, § 1, supplemented Code § 105A.2 by adding thereto the following definitive provision: `Disability' means the physical or mental condition of a person which constitutes a substantial handicap. In reference to employment, under this chapter, `disability' also means the physical or mental condition of a person which constitutes a substantial handicap, but is unrelated to such person's ability to engage in a particular occupation. See The Code 1973, § 601A.2(11). See generally 1A Sutherland, Statutory Construction, § 22.24 (Sands 4th ed. 1972); 73 Am. Jur.2d, Statutes, § 2; Black's Law Dictionary, Supplemental Act, at 1608 (rev. 4th ed. 1968). It is also axiomatic the legislature may be its own lexicographer. See e. g., Knudsen v. Iowa Liquor Control Commission, 171 N.W.2d 538, 540 (Iowa 1969). The record is at best meager regarding the particular disabilities which entitle a teacher to sick (disability) pay. But we need not close our eyes to the general policy of school districts throughout this state with regard to compensating a disabled teacher for various causes, both voluntary and involuntary. It cannot be reasonably presumed the school district's program differs in any material respect. See State v. Armstrong, 203 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 1972); Code § 279.40. Mindful of the foregoing we now hold the denial of sick (disability) pay to pregnant teachers is sexually discriminatory. IV. TWO YEAR PROBATIONARY REQUIREMENT (1970 Regulation). Here to be considered is trial court's holding that the provision of the regulation denying a nontenured teacher maternity leave of absence and imposing employment termination without right to reinstatement is discriminatory. In this vein defendants contend plaintiffs grant leaves of absence to male teachers without regard to their tenure status but deny equal privilege, particularly pregnancy leave, to female teachers unless tenured. But the record affirmatively discloses nontenured male and female teachers are treated alike with regard to leaves of absence. Therefore defendants failed to carry their burden of proof on the issue at hand. On this assignment we reverse. V. BONA FIDE OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS (BFOQ) EXCEPTIONS. Next to be determined is whether sexually discriminatory provisions of the regulations are based upon the nature of the occupation. See § 105A.7(1)(c). Stated otherwise, the issue now before us is whether those provisions heretofore found sexually discriminatory are based upon a reasonable occupation-related foundation. Plaintiffs claim one purpose for the 1970 mandatory leave provision is to provide for welfare of the mother. The record completely fails, however, to demonstrate a medical need for such an obligatory provision. There is, in fact, evidence which compels a conclusion contrary to that urged by plaintiffs. Medical witnesses for both plaintiffs and defendants testified a woman entering the last trimester of pregnancy is prone to swelling of the legs, varicose veins and backaches. But there is no medical evidence from which we can conclude these conditions are aggravated by continued teaching. In fact, medical testimony discloses many women are able to work until time of delivery without attendant disability. Plaintiffs' expert witness conceded the vast majority of obstetricians and gynecologists were of the opinion such continued employment in no way adversely affected a woman's welfare. Moreover, plaintiffs' argument encounters even more difficulty in light of its past practices. Illustratively, Mrs. McCarthy, as a substitute, taught physical education classes eleven times throughout her maternity leave at the request of the school district. We are satisfied the welfare-based argument, advanced by plaintiffs, discriminatorily presumes every pregnant teacher is physically incapable of continuing work after the fifth month of pregnancy. Thus, the regulations sweep too broadly. See Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. at 643-647, 94 S.Ct. at 798-799. See also Cheatwood v. South Central Bell Telephone & Tel. Co., 303 F.Supp. at 759-760. A related claim by plaintiffs is to the effect the leave provision finds support in evidence showing teachers lose classroom efficiency beginning about the sixth month of pregnancy. On the contrary, the evidence in this area discloses relatively few teachers lose efficiency in the latter months of pregnancy. Briefly stated, the bulk of the testimony shows no two pregnancies are alike. We see little rationality in a rigid leave proviso which applies across the board to all pregnancy-related cases. See Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. at 645-646, 94 S.Ct. at 799. The brief of Johnston County Community School District, amicus curiae, proposes a third basis in support of the aforesaid 1970 leave provision. It vigorously urges the need to secure instructional continuity and avoid repeated interruptions by teacher replacements during the school year provides a reasonable foundation for the leave policy. While such uninterruptedness is certainly a matter of legitimate concern, we agree with this reasoning in Green v. Waterford Board of Education, 473 F.2d at 635-636: Continuity of instruction is surely an important value. Where a pregnant teacher provides the Board with a date certain for commencement of leave, however, that value is preserved; an arbitrary leave date set at the end of the fifth month is no more calculated to facilitate a planned and orderly transition between the teacher and a substitute than is a date fixed closer to confinement. Indeed, the latteras was the case herewould afford the Board more, not less, time to procure a satisfactory long term substitute. There remains, of course, the possibility of premature childbirth or complications in the late stages of pregnancy, eventualities which might upset the best-laid plans of the teacher, the scheduled substitute, and the school board. However, there is nothing to indicate that these would be more than isolated instances. The Board must have substitute teachers generally available to replace any teacher suddenly incapacitated by acute illness or by any number of other causes. Any conclusion that these substitutes could not handle additional pregnancy-related emergencies is pure speculation on this record. And as stated in Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. at 642, 94 S.Ct. at 797: Were continuity the only goal, cut-off dates much later during pregnancy would serve as well or better than the challenged rules, providing that ample advance notice requirements were retained. Indeed, continuity would seem just as well attained if the teacher herself were allowed to choose the date upon which to commence her leave, at least so long as the decision were required to be made and notice given of it well in advance of the date selected. In fact, since the fifth or sixth months of pregnancy will obviously begin at different times in the school year for different teachers    rules may serve to hinder attainment of the very continuity objectives that they are purportedly designed to promote. The above amicus curiae argument is devoid of substance. We now hold (1) welfare of the mother; (2) classroom efficiency; and (3) instructional continuity do not so reasonably relate to the nature of the occupation (BFOQ) as to justify the leave provision of the instantly involved regulation. By the same token it is to us evident there is here no rational nexus between the nature of the occupation and any return to work restriction or sick (disability) pay provisions of the 1970 and 1972 regulations. VI. WAIVER OF DISCRIMINATORY REGULATION PROVISIONS. Sometime in 1968 the school district teachers formed a committee known as the Representative Council (Council). It was established, at least in part, for the purpose of recommending to the County Board of Education those policies supported by the teachers. But the county board is not bound by the Council's recommendations. Before adoption of the 1970 regulation it was presented by the Council to the teachers for a vote and by them approved. The Council then forwarded the policy to the county board which subsequently adopted it verbatim. In light of the foregoing plaintiffs assert Parr and McCarthy waived their right to contest sexually discriminatory provisions of the regulation. This court is satisfied the rights accorded by Code § 105A.7 against sex discrimination were not effectively relinquished by the Council's action. In Robinson v. Lorillard Corporation, 444 F.2d 791, 799 (4th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1006, 92 S.Ct. 573, 30 L.Ed.2d 655 (1971), the court said: The rights assured by Title VII are not rights which can be bargained awayeither by a union, by an employer, or by both acting in concert. Albeit the Council did not stand in the shoes of a labor union in the strict sense of the word, we see no reason to distinguish, for the purpose of this case, between a representative council and a labor union when both such organizations, regardless of nomenclature, represent and speak for the working people. In this regard Code § 105A.2(4) says: `Labor organization' means any organization which exists for the purpose in whole or in part of collective bargaining, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, terms, or conditions of employment, or of other mutual aid or protection in connection with employment. Nor is there any valid distinction in the fact that Robinson, supra, involved Title VII rights whereas § 105A.7 rights are here relied upon. Both enactments, in relevant part, prohibit sex discrimination. See also United States v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co., 464 F.2d 301, 309 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1116, 93 S.Ct. 913, 34 L.Ed.2d 700 (1973).