Lillian Garland never thought that having a baby would mean fighting to keep her job. She was an employee at California Federal Savings & Loans where, after becoming pregnant, she was granted a leave of absence.
Of the 55 million women working in the U.S., we can assume that the chances of a female employee taking pregnancy leave are generally typical, so under federal law, this must be ensured. However, in Garland’s case, the California law was disregarded and she was denied employment at her previous position.
Having been assured of employment upon her return, she was confused to learn that her job had been filled while she was away on leave. In response to the false stipulations that she expected, Lillian reacted by suing California Federal for not abiding by the law and giving her her rightful four months paid disability. Five years after the case began, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to sustain the state law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good start, but you need to tell me that CalFed wouldn't give Garland her job back, and that she sued them, before you get into the larger issue of how many women are affected by this court decision.
ReplyDelete12/15