Court Opinion

ID: 9551549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:55:00.306304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:07.097594
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring specially) :
I concur with the main opinion, but add some observations without intending any disparagement thereof. I realize the likelihood that its underlying rationale gets to the core of the problem and disposes of it in a more adroit way than I may appreciate. Nevertheless, for my own purpose, I state two propositions which I think support the decision of the Commission and the affirmance thereof by the main opinion.
The purpose of the unemployment compensation system is to provide compensation for persons who are involuntarily unemployed and who are available for employment.1
The course of nature with respect to pregnancy is so well known as to require no expatiation. I think the restriction of compensation during the 12 weeks before and 6 weeks after delivery of a baby is a reasonable requirement, in harmony with the above stated purpose of the statute; 2 and a safeguard against possible improper predations on the fund. There are many burdens involved in the bearing and rearing of children, which must be borne by those who take on that responsibility, or in certain exigencies, assisted by other governmental programs. But the system for compensation for persons involuntarily unemployed who are available for work was not intended nor designed to extend to that area.
HENRIOD, C. J., concurs in the views expressed in the concurring opinion of CROCKETT, J.

. Sec. 35-4-4 (c), U.C.A.1953; Martinez v. Board of Review, Dept. of Employment Security, 25 Utah 2d 131, 477 P.2d 587.

. That pregnancy is a valid basis for different classification and treatment of individuals see Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, 94 S.Ct. 2485, 41 L.Ed.2d 256 (1974).