Franklin Manufacturing Co. v. Iowa Civil Rights Commission
270 N.W.2d 829
Iowa
1978
Check Treatment

*1 “good conclusion that cause’ refers personal particular to factors to a teacher is upon a search for the intent of the

based

legislature as manifested in 279.13 and §§ as

279.24 of Code existed in 1973. have subsequently

Both sections been sub 279.13, rewritten.

stantially See 279.15 §§ 279.27, The “just Code 1977. Whether 279.15(2),

cause” under The Code thing “just

means same cause” under 279.27, The Code cf. Barnes v. Seat Dist., supra, “just

tle and whether equated

cause” under either section can be “good

with cause” as we have here defined questions

it are which we have not con express any and do not opinion

sidered

upon. judgment

Trial court shall enter

plaintiff stipulation in accordance with the parties.

REVERSED.

FRANKLIN MANUFACTURING

COMPANY, Appellee, COMMISSION,

IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS

Appellant.

No. 61559.

Supreme Court Iowa.

Oct. *2 Swanger, Moines,

Phillips appel- & Des lee.
Reed, Smith, McClay, Pittsburgh, & Shaw Pa., and Leon R. Shearer and Patricia A. Schoenthal, Shoff, Thoma, Davis, Hock- Moines, Wine, Des for American enburg & Co., Inc., and amicus curiae. Chain Cable LeGRAND, Justice. Kathy John and Vickie this case Bish-
op they subjected claim were to discrimina- tory by employer, their practices (hereafter Manufacturing Company called ' Franklin), They because of their sex. were disability benefits under denied when group insurance took ma- their ternity employment. leaves from 601A.6, Code, They say this violated The § discriminatory relating employment practices.
They complaint filed a with the Iowa Civil Commission 601A. The § Code. The Commission ruled for the claim- ants, appealed and Franklin to the district 601A.15, The court as authorized Code. The district court entered a decree revers- The ing ap- the Commission. pealed, reverse district court. following The issues are raised for deter- mination: 1. Are bound federal de- Iowa courts interpreting cisions in its own Civil Rights Act?

2. Did the trial court err in 601A.12, Code, exempts The Frank- disability plan complying lin’s with the Iowa Civil Act? interpretation 3. Would an of the Iowa Rights Act to allow the claim and Vickie Kathy John be un- as violative constitutional of the Su- and the premacy Pro- of- the tection Clause Fourteenth Turner, Gen., Atty. Richard C. Shir- Amendment? Steele, Gen., ley Atty. Asst. for appel- G. 4. Does the Labor Management Rela- lant. amended, tions Act as U.S.C. § Cleveland, Dempsey, seq., preempt pre- et the field and Squires, Sanders Ohio, Reimer, Rogers, application Kathleen A. clude the of Iowa law to group pro-

alter Franklin’s case nor the later Oats decision gram, part which is of a lawful collec- question touches the raised here. ting bargaining agreement? We set out the statute in full: virtually dispute. The facts are without “The provisions of [601A]

Franklin maintained a Insurance relating to discrimination because of sex employees. purported Plan for its *3 age or shall not be construed to apply to non-occupational bodily all cover accidental any plan retirement system or benefit of injury provided weekly or disease. It for any employer plan unless such system or disability payments according to a schedule is a subterfuge mere adopted for pur- the plan. specifically set out in the It excluded pose evading provisions the of this payment “any period of benefits for of dis- chapter.” ability pregnancy, resulting due to or child- miscarriage.” or Both Mrs. John and birth is not claimed Franklin’s plan is a Bishop maternity Mrs. took leave in 1973. “mere subterfuge adopted for the purpose Bishop returned work after an ab- Mrs. to of evading” the Rights Act, and the ten weeks. sence of Mrs. John did not only question therefore is whether this stat- at all after the birth of her child. return exempts ute all systems benefit only or hospi- Both claimants received medical and those relating to retirement. This is a mat- the plan, only tal benefits under and it is ter of statutory interpretation which in- weekly disability payments the which were volves a determination of legislative intent. claimants, finding denied In for the them. says Franklin we should construe the stat- pay the Commission ordered ute exempt “any retirement plan or Bishop Kathy Vickie John $278.57 [any] system.” benefit The Commission $228.57. urges a more interpretation limited grounds I. One relied on say wants us to the statute exempts only trial court was that General Electric Co. v. “any retirement plan [any or retirement] Gilbert, 401, 97 50 system.” benefit 343 finding dictates a statutes, In construing we observe well In Franklin. Gilbert the United States Su established rules. We listed a number of held a preme company Court these principles Iowa National Industrial arising which excluded disabilities out of Loan Department Co. v. Iowa State of Rev- pregnancy did not constitute sex discrimi enue, (Iowa 224 N.W.2d 440 1974), of Title nation violation VII of the Civil where we said: Rights Act of 1964. The case was one of statutory interpretation, limited to constru “(1) considering legislative In enact Quaker ing a federal statute. Oats Co. strained, ments we should impracti avoid Human Rights v. Cedar cal or absurd results. Cedar Memorial (Iowa 1978), 268 N.W.2d we Park Cemetery Association v. Personnel we were not said bound Gilbert in con Associates, 178 N.W.2d Act, struing our own Civil (Iowa 1970); Jones, v. Olsen 209 N.W.2d declined to follow it. (Iowa 1973); Northern Natural Gas disposes Oats Forst, Company 205 N.W.2d that Gilbert controls the (Iowa 1973); McGuire, State v. appeal. give We present that matter no (Iowa N.W.2d Isaacson v. further consideration. Iowa State Tax 183 N.W.2d (Iowa 1971); Harnack v. District II. The second issue is another matter of Woodbury County, Court of 179 N.W.2d statutory interpretation concerning the (Iowa 1970); Fulton, Krueger meaning of 601A.12. The (Iowa 1969); heavily upon N.W.2d Janson opinion relies our in Cedar Fulton, Rapids Community (Iowa District v. 162 N.W.2d (Iowa 1975), N.W.2d 486 but 1968). neither ordinary the usual and vinced other “(2) Ordinarily, interpretation would en- inhibit, used language courage, be rather meaning discriminatory is to than legislature intent of the policies. legislature the manifest That is not what the but import intended, the literal prevail over and we now will hold Franklin’s Northern Natural Gas Co. used. exempt words Insurance Plan is not Forst, 205 N.W.2d at 695. supra, 601A, provisions The Code. plain, clear and “(3) language Where III. We next consider whether per In re for construction. there is no room mitting the claims of Mrs. John and Mrs. Estate, 213 N.W.2d Johnson’s , would, contends, as Franklin violate Zimmerman, 1973); McKillip v. (Iowa Supremacy and the Pro (Iowa 1971); In re tection Clause of Fourteenth Amend Beeck, Brauch’s Estate ment. 1970). (Iowa I, We believe division where we held the object “(4) should look to the to be *4 binding federal decisions were not on us in evils accomplished and the and mischiefs Act, construing our own Civil an- reaching in a rea- sought to be remedied swers Supremacy construction which will sonable or liberal without need of further discussion. purpose its rather than one best effect Johnson, Equal find no basis for the it. State v. Protection which will defeat argument. 335, (Iowa 1974). Geduldig Franklin cites 337 Aiel lo, 484, 2485, 417 94 41 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d “(5) parts of the enactment should All support position. 256 of its Gedul- together impor- and undue be considered dig only held the exclusion of pregnancy any single to or tance should not be claims under a quite California statute dis Memorial Park portion. isolated Cedar similar to ours does not violate Equal v. Personnel Asso- Cemetery Association Protection The following Clause. language ciates, Inc., Realty Com- supra; Webster Geduldig equally helpful is to the N.W.2d pany City Dodge, of Fort 174 in contending the inclusion of 413, (Iowa 1970); v. Iowa Wilson 418 pregnancy claims would not 813, 1969); violate the (Iowa N.W.2d 822 City, 165 Equal provision Protection either: Tax 165 Goergen v. State 782, 785, (Iowa 1969). 786 N.W.2d “There is no evidence in the record that the selection of the risks insured weight to the administra- “(6) giveWe statutes, program worked to particular- against discriminate interpretation of tive group longstanding. State definable or class in they are of terms of ly when (428), Garland, aggregate Iowa 1087 94 protection 250 risk derived (1959); Northwestern group States or class from program. N.W.2d 122 v. Board of Review Co. Portland Cement There is no risk from which men are 720, 244 City, Iowa 58 City protected of Mason and women are not. Likewise (1953).” 15 N.W.2d there is no risk from which women are (417 protected and men are not.” U.S. 496, Ray, 251 N.W.2d also Doe v. See 484, 496, 2485, 2497, 94 41 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (Iowa 1977); Buckley, Iowa v. 232 264, 265). (Iowa Domain In- 270 N.W.2d dustries, Security Bank v. First Inc. protects A which men and women Co., (Iowa 1975). Trust equally from disabilities to which each class mindful, too, direction We are subject separately hardly can be said to construe the Civil 601A.16 that we should treat either That the risks unequally. liberally purpose. Act to effect its may one class be the same as the risks Equal of the other does not raise an Protec- legislative pur We conclude the problem. tion enacting and intent 601A.12 was pose exempt only plans sys Although those or benefit not decided on to constitutional relating grounds, City Manhart, tems We are con- Angeles retirement. Los (1976), 55 L.Ed.2d 657 U.S. S.Ct. court said: “Federal problem same in con (1978), discusses this labor policy as reflected in the National unequal retirement benefits with nection Act, Labor amended, Relations has been be accruing to male and female workers construed not preclude the states from longer than men. De women live cause regulating aspects of labor relations that result, admitted the court said the spite this involve conduct touching interests so deeply greater not demand contri employer could rooted in local feeling and responsibility * * * from female workers than from butions we could not infer that Con workers. Cf. Cedar Communi male gress deprived had the States power District v. 227 N.W.2d at ty School to act.” See also Diego San Union v. Gar mon, U.S. S.Ct. We hold there is no merit in Franklin’s L.Ed.2d argument. Protection A number of cases have allowed the state brings IV. This us to the last issue raised: to assert under this doctrine. controversy pre- within the field Is Farmer v. See United Brotherhood of Car Relations empted by the National Labor penters, 97 S.Ct. handling disputes? for the of labor Board (1977); L.Ed.2d 338 Automobile Workers v. part Insurance Plan is Russell, 932, 2 U.S. S.Ct. bargaining agreement of the collective be- (1958); Youngdahl Rainfair, representative Franklin and the la- tween U.S. 2 L.Ed.2d 151 argues the National bor union. Franklin (1957); Automobile Workers v. Wisconsin *5 Board has the exclusive Labor Relations Employment Board, Relations U.S. jurisdiction any dispute arising over under S.Ct. 100 L.Ed. 1162 bargaining agreement. the collective This rationale has been applied under true in most la It is instances varying circumstances where the alleged disputes arising out of collective bar bor pre-emptive effect of the National Labor agreements are either gaining exclusively Relations Act has rejected. been Farmer v. within the of the National La Carpenters, United Brotherhood of 430 U.S. or, cognizable bor Relations Board if in 303-305, at 97 S.Ct. at 1065-1066, 51 courts, federal law is to in applied state be (claim L.Ed.2d at 352-53 for emotional dis- solving problems the raised. Teamsters tress caused by tort); intentional Linn v. Local Union No. 394 v. Associated Grocers Workers, Plant 53, 61, Guard Cooperative, of Iowa 263 N.W.2d 657, 662, S.Ct. 15 L.Ed.2d (1966) (Iowa 1978). (suit for libel); malicious Bica, DeCanas v. Franklin, course, of would like to have 351, 356-58, U.S. 96 S.Ct. applied law because it federal feels the Gil- (hiring illegal require bert case would then a result favor- aliens); Simpson v. Providence Washington able to it. The on the other Group, Insurance F.Supp. (D.C. hand, naturally prefer would that the more 1976) (discrimination Alaska against per- interpretations favorable of this court con- sons over Williams v. International trol our decision. Boilermakers, Brotherhood of 27 Cal.2d exceptions pre One of the to the (1946) (discrimination 165 P.2d 903 based on rule emption involving is that issues mat race). public vital policy ters of state are not by the pre-empted National Labor Relations the case now before us we hold In Act. the state an overriding has interest under the Iowa Civil Lodge Act protecting In International Association of its against citizens Machinists discrimination Aerospace Workers v. Wiscon based on sex. The Employment present sin Relations controversy is not pre-empted 132, 136, 96 2548, 2551, U.S. S.Ct. 49 L.Ed.2d by the National Labor Relations Act. Rapids Community our decision in Cedar disposes of this we are convinced

While (including at 494-95 dis- preemption curiae Furthermore, in the amicus poses argument. raised first of this the issue Employee Re- Federal concerning Gilbert, the pointed brief out U.S. at reason Act), one other we mention lations a significant at 50 L.Ed.2d at the jurisdiction. is state upholding for complica- lead to pregnancies number in Bald recently announced philosophy tions, which delivery, either before or after Local 959 Teamsters and RCA Alascom be as sickness under would classified 1977), P.2d from (Alaska pregnancy- of all definition. The exclusion quote: which clearly is related conditions thus discrimina- and Labor Relations Act National “The tory. rights acts federal civil state and the each in re- years apart, enacted 30 were deny also us to the asks monumental the most sponse to one of John and Mrs. be claims Mrs. They were century. the crises of social is pregnancy “voluntary both a cause The purposes. enacted different reject argu condition. We desirable” in 1935 to alleviate was enacted NLRA ment. improve lot strife industrial is While the act sexual intercourse It was sub- workers. U.S.C. voluntary, pregnancy necessarily is prevent in 1947 to stantially amended one intended-—or desired —result. This is power by unions abuses distinguishes from pregnancy factor which 141, 151. them. Id. §§ act had “voluntary” two other conditions to which an rights passed laws were civil The vasectomies, for in- Franklin refers. prevent the use of irrelevant attempt stance, the is which very result one for persons criteria to bar stigmatizing operation performed. was The same for which were employment * * * an by-pass. excep- true of intestinal Such qualified. well tions, incidentally which are not excluded noth- have that there is “We concluded plan, distinguisha- are terms of aims, inconsistent in these ing necessarily *6 pregnancy-related ble from disabilities. Alaska has rights] that the laws [civil promote purpose the latter enacted to employer-em- limited laws give way to the federal need not rights ployee under 601A. It does hold purpose. former We enacted for the purport preg- limit the elimination of Relations Act the National Labor nancy private plans. risks from preempt Rights Civil does not [Alaska’s Manhart, City of Los v. Angeles 435 U.S. at deprive the courts and does not Act] 671; 718, 98 S.Ct. at 55 L.Ed.2d at in- to hear the this state Rapids Quaker Oats Co. Cedar Human stant case.” Rights 268 N.W.2d at 865. Rights Maine Human See also We have all the arguments V. considered Paperworkers, 383 A.2d United Franklin, including made on behalf of those (Me.1978); cf. Alexander Gard- n. 30 in the curiae advanced amicus brief. For 36, 50-51, Co., ner-Denver given, judgment the reasons of the dis- 1011, 1020, 1021, 39 L.Ed.2d trict court is reversed and case is re- too,, policy, We believe this should be our entry judgment manded for for the Com- considering arising under matters mission. it adopt We as such. Iowa Act. REVERSED and REMANDED. should, mention here perhaps, We pregnancy-relat HARRIS, J., except All Justices concur not covered because ed are conditions ALLBEE, dissents, McGIVERIN, sickness, who a injury an nor are neither JJ., LARSON, part. who take no only plan. in the believe risks included HARRIS, (dissenting). Justice views expressed

In accordance with the Oats my dissent Co. Cedar Human (Iowa 1978), I respectfully I the trial

dissent. would affirm court. FRITZ, Appellee, D.

Glen

IOWA STATE HIGHWAY

COMMISSION, Appellant.

No. 60920.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct.