Legal Document

479 U.S. 511 107 S.Ct. 821 93 L.Ed.2d 909 Linda WIMBERLY, Petitionerv.LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF MISSOURI et al. No. 85-129. Argued Dec. 9, 1986. Decided Jan. 21, 1987. Syllabus Petitioner, who had been on pregnancy leave from her employment pursuant to the employer's policy that she would be rehired only if a position was available when ready return work, told notified employer wanted work there were no positions open. She then filed claim for unemployment benefits with Missouri Division of Employment Security, which denied statute disqualifies claimant "has left his voluntarily without good cause attributable or employer." After denial upheld administrative appeal, petitioner sought review in Circuit Court, held inconsistent Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(12), federal provides State, such as Missouri, participating federal-state compensation program shall deny any "solely basis termination pregnancy." The Court Appeals affirmed, but Supreme reversed. Held: is consistent statute. plain import 3304(a)(12)'s language Congress intended prohibit States singling out unfavorable treatment and not mandate preferential treatment. This confirmed by both legislative history Labor Department's interpretation focus statutory State's pregnancy, claimant's reason leaving job. To apply statute, under all persons reasons causally connected are disqualified receiving benefits, it necessary know because pregnancy. All relevant stopped having causal connection employer. Under scheme, "sole basis" decision natural reading language. Pp. 514-522. 688 S.W.2d 344, affirmed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion other Members joined, except BLACKMUN, took part case. Julia S. Levin, petitioner. Michael L. Boicourt, Jefferson City, Mo., respondents. Christopher J. Wright, Washington, D.C., United amicus curiae, special Court. Justice O'CONNOR 1 concluded does State disqualifying claimants their jobs imposes same disqualification 344 (1985). We granted certiorari, 475 1118, 106 1633, 90 179 (1986), court's conflicts Fourth Brown v. Porcher, 660 F.2d 1001 (1981), cert. denied, 459 1150, 103 796, 74 1000 (1983), question practical significance administration state laws. 2 * In August 1980, after employed J.C. Penney Company approximately three years, requested absence account Pursuant its established policy, "leave guarantee reinstatement," meaning work. Petitioner's child born November 5, 1980. On December 1, wished 3 Petitioner benefits. Security (Division) Mo.Rev.Stat. 288.050.1(1) (Supp.1984), A deputy determined "quit pregnancy," App. Pet. Cert. A53, therefore "voluntarily [her] Id., at A52. appealed Division's appeals tribunal, which, full evidentiary hearing, entered findings fact conclusions law affirming deputy's decision. Industrial Relations Commission petitioner's petition review. 4 Jackson County, Missouri. court 3304(a)(12) construed supra, could enforced. Following Brown, "banned use an excuse denying otherwise eligible women," A44, accordingly reversed Commission's remanded entry award. Although expressed "reservations concerning soundness ruling Brown," id., A39, felt constrained follow Circuit's construction 3304(a)(12). 5 reversed, judges dissenting. previous appellate decisions correctly interpreted (Supp.1984) who, like petitioner, "for that, while perhaps legitimate personal standpoint, S.W.2d, 346. Rejecting notion bound prohibits laws scheme conflict this requirement, found, expressly refer pregnancy; rather, noted Department Labor, agency charged enforcing consistently has viewed prohibiting discrimination rather than mandating now affirm. II 6 Act (Act), 3301 seq., enacted originally Title IX Social 1935, 49 Stat. 639, envisions cooperative unemployed workers. See St. Martin Evangelical Lutheran Church South Dakota, 451 772, 775, 101 2142, 2144, 68 612 (1981). establishes certain minimum standards must satisfy order participate program. 3304(a). standard issue case, mandates "no person solely Apart reflected 3304(a), leaves discretion rules governing programs. Steward Machine Co. Davis, 301 548, 57 883, 81 L.Ed. 1279 (1937). programs, therefore, vary distribution although require some version three-part test. First, earn specified amount wages number weeks covered during 1-year base period entitled receive Second, "eligible" is, they able Third, these requirements may "disqualified" set forth law. most common job cause, being discharged misconduct, refusing suitable Brief Amicus Curiae 2-3; Note, Denial Benefits Otherwise Eligible Women Basis Pregnancy: Section 82 Mich.L.Rev. 1925, 1928-1929 (1984). 7 pregnancy-related terminations matter considerable disparity among States. Most regard voluntary cause. Some have specific provisions enumerating pregnancy-motivated job, others, judicial decision, treat encompassed within larger categories illness compelling reasons.1 few States, however, chosen define "leaving cause" narrowly.2 unless directly 8 dispute treats pregnant women employer, including those suffering types temporary disabilities. Tr. Oral Arg. 8. Fifer 665 (Mo.App.1984); Duffy Comm'n, 556 195 (Mo.App.1977). contends, simply antidiscrimination According affirmatively requires provide next regardless similarly situated claimants. 19-25. 9 Contrary assertions, text Thus, decide time allowing respects situated: hand, adopts neutral rule incidentally formerly group, application cannot readily characterized made For example, law, pregnancy: bearing Because ever knowing pregnant, 10 have, occasions, similar disadvantageous treatment, Monroe Standard Oil Co., 452 549, 2510, 69 226 considered 38 2021(b)(3), provision Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance 1974, "shall retention . obligation" member Nation's Reserve Forces. intent afford reservists "the afforded co-workers military obligations," U.S., 560, S.Ct., 2517; did create "employer responsibility treatment." 562, 2518. Similarly, Southeastern Community College 442 397, 99 2361, 60 980 (1979), we 504 Rehabilitation 1973, 29 794, "otherwise qualified handicapped individual" excluded federally funded handicap." "eliminate against individuals," generally "affirmative efforts overcome disabilities caused handicaps." 410, 2369. 11 Even concedes fail eligibility ability availability 24. also S.Rep. 94-1265, p. 21 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, pp. 5997, 6015 ("Pregnant individuals continue required meet applicable criteria work"); H.R.Rep. 94-755, 50 (1975). Nevertheless, contends provisions. Reply 8-9. But statute's will support distinction attempts draw. extend rules. It applies, own terms, compensation. instances, scope same: single compelled 12 cited view drafted final form reaches more broadly. original provided: 13 "[N]o determinations relating employment, active search refusal accept manner discriminates 2079, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 8(a) (1975); H.R. 8366, (1975) (emphasis added). 14 deletion emphasized language, particularly reference "discrimination," manifests congressional transform can point nothing dramatic change. difficult see how conjunctive "and" expand what become already present, essentially entirety, first clause bill. Indeed, however phrase interpreted—either ban preference—the additional superfluous. conclude eliminate lengthy redundant phrase, intending change provision. explains Congress' silence question, violating either logic 15 reliance upon portions unavailing. As notes, House Report bill containing found refers "nineteen states" "special pertaining 7. goes observe "[s]everal hold unable unavailable work; remainder disqualify condition result Ibid. specify 19 parties agree probably referring listed letter issued week before Committee filed. Insurance Program Letter 33-75 (Dec. 8, 1975). letter, called repeal "still include disqualifications automatically consider claimant." 2. attached summary, discussed 16 Neither nor Missouri's included list summary includes defined around date childbirth (the kind Turner Utah, 423 44, 96 249, 46 181 (1975)); specifically miscellaneous argues omitted "their policies apparent statutes." "policy" neutrally workers unrelated employment. clearly "discriminatory added); hint disagreement 17 Senate focuses exclusively struck down due process grounds Utah providing woman expected childbirth, even used representative prohibit: "In individual whose related barred 1975 type unconstitutional. appear involve somewhat shorter periods disqualification." 19, 6013, 18 short, Reports, elsewhere history, evidences There disapproved of, much less prohibit, Missouri's. shows focused addressed 3304(a)(12): Finally, Labor's supports holding Shortly enactment distributed instructions regarding implementation terms. emphasizes state, part: "A causes These inequitable whether eligible." Training Administration, Service, Draft Language Commentary Implement Compensation Amendments 1976—P.L. 94-556, 62 (undated 1976). If ambiguity sentences, balance communication provision: "The new entitlement mean meeting receipt treated differently paid meets conditions benefits." 20 reiterated later stating "does speak treating favorably. termination." Supplement 1—Questions Answers Supplementing 94-566, 7, Since adhered view. 27-28. agency's confirms clear language: judgment 22 so ordered. 23 BLACKMUN Arkansas, Tennessee. Ark.Stat.Ann. 81-1106(a) (1976 Supp.1985); S.D. Codified Laws 61-6-3 (1978); Tenn. Code Ann. 50-7-303(a)(1) (Supp. 1986). example reached determination, Cal.Admin. Code, Tit. 22, 1256-15(b), reprinted CCH Unempl.Ins.Rep. ¶ 5219 O (Apr. 1982). See, e.g., Okla.Stat., 40, §§ 2-404, 2-405 (1981); Vt.Stat.Ann., 1344(a)(3) (1978 Supp.1986).

Classification Label: 1