*1 rеspec- to do failed on their legislators what enough early pass
tive house floors: SF return presentation,
the session ensure end. before session’s
and reconsideration effec- interpreted and
Because SCR as approved legislature
tuated and in- majority, indirectly significantly but to the Gover-
fringed upon powers reserved 16,1 art. Ill conclude pursuant
nor adjournment pre-
May 20th intra-session triggering thereby return
vented of SF Trial court’s deter- pocket veto clause. was invalid
mination the veto SF 7 untimely not be allowed to stand. should REYNOLDSON,
LeGRAND, REES
JJ., join this dissent. CO.,
QUAKER Appellee, OATS RAPIDS HUMAN RIGHTS
CEDAR
COMMISSION, Appellant.
No. 60346.
Supreme Court of Iowa. *2 upon complaint
This case arose filed (hereafter claimant), a Tennyson Sandra K. Quaker, employed by laboratory technician who submitted to an abortion the ad- abortion, vice of her doctor. After litigation claimant underwent a tubal prevent pregnancies. further She was off Her approximately work for five weeks. disability claim for benefits under the com- pany’s plan was disallowed because it was “pregnancy related.” the Commis- complaint filed a with
She sion, disability bene- alleging the denial discrimination as fits constituted sex Rapids Rights Human defined in the Cedar 54-74, 69, Mu- (Ordinance Ch. Ordinance. 601A.6(l)(a), Code) The Code. nicipal and § the or- outlined in Following procedure dinance, findings made the Commission un- was then probable cause. Conciliation following which an successfully attempted, The evidentiary hearing was conducted. of benefits for found the denial Commission pregnancy-relatеd disability the claimant’s “discriminatory contrary based on sex City of the of Cedar to ordinance 54-74 Rapids and to 601A of the Iowa Code.” Ch. Quaker to cease
The ordered Commission relat- excluding pregnancy and desist from Turner, Gen., Shirley G. Atty. Richard C. pay disabili- plan, ed from its disabilities Steele, David F. Atty. Asst. Gen. and time she was ty benefits to claimant for the McGuire, Rapids, ap- for City Atty., Cedar work, disability pay and to аbsent pellant. benefits to all women who took Ingersoll, Rapids, Shuttleworth & Cedar July 1973 to disability related leave from appellee. 3, 1975, date of the up until the order. Commission’s Quaker petition filed a district order, alleging LeGRAND, for a review Justice. discriminatory. sexually was not exclusion The here is whether a short- Commission, turn, applica- filed an The plan in for all term income effect seeking mаndatory injunction and a tion (hereafter employees of Oats Co. Quaker to compel of mandamus to writ Quaker) illegally discriminates on the basis out the terms of its order. carry excluding of sex due to “disabilities Quaker, resulting in favor of pregnancy or disorders The trial court ruled there- was not viola- holding Rapids Rights from.” The Human the denial of benefits Cedar Act or Commission) (hereafter appeals tive of either the Iowa Civil Commission Rights Ordinance. holding Rapids from a decree it does not. We the Cedar Human trial court proceedings reaching reverse and remand for further this conclusion Electric Co. principally upon General as noted herein. relied 601A, Code) (Ch. both considered The were Gilbert, 97 S.Ct. However, we to the claim. applicable It reversed Com- is the the cаse matter before us mission’s order and remanded believe proceed- further of the ordinance. body alleged for “whatever violation necessary.” ings, any, may be with the Cedar complaint if was filed appeal Commission. Disability Quaker’s Income I. Short-Term *3 decision of that from the district was explained in a bro- Plan described and is is the now here body, appeal and the copy еmployees. the A chure distributed to Al- reversing the Commission. decree an was introduced as of this instrument of ordi- provisions the it is the though true Quaker’s em- plan protects The exhibit. our the are for of statute nance and those or accident. Its ployees in case of illness identical, a viola- it is nevertheless purposes is purpose stated this: which claimant upon the tion of ordinance are absent from work because you “If jurisdiction has no The commission relies. injury, your or ex- personal of illness to enforce the statute. though you even are un- penses continue regular true, course, earn income. The able to the ordinance de- It is of 601A.17, Code, Plan de- Illness and Accident is its au- pends on for § signed worries in your provides: to reduce financial thority. That section providing portion of such a situation chap- may implement “Local laws this when your regular pay non-occupational any Nothing ter. contained in injury illness or occurs.” construed as indi- chapter of this shall be gener- cating part an intent on the plan contains this exclusion: occupy the field in assembly al to following “The disabilities are cover- chapter operates this thе exclusion to ed by the Plan: chap- with this local laws not inconsistent intentionally Disabilities which are self- subject mat- that with same ter deal inflicted ter.” illegal drugs use of or Disabilities due to to from time is also true we must refer It intoxicants appeal to in our of this time consideration felo- Disabilities due to the commission of our Ch. 601A because construction nious acts plan depends statutory ordinаnce the employee Disabilities incurred before City City established there. See Iowa eligible plan for Westinghouse Learning Corporation, during military Disabilities incurred (Iowa 1978). N.W.2d of absence leaves pregnancy due to or disorders Disabilities point important We believe it is resulting therefrom out, case, if not least future for this for Disabilities covered state workmans jurisdiction has ones that the сommission compensation laws only for of the ordinance. violations working Disabilities incurred while for of the III.Ordinance Ordinances 54— supplied.) employer.” (Emphasis another (Ch. of the Munici- Rapids City of Cedar the eight It that seven of noteworthy is pal Code) provides part as follows: all apply equally employees, exclusions Employment Unfair “Section 69.11. eighth relates both male and female. The (a): Practices we only to females. The must for discriminatory It unfair shall be or answer is the exclusion which de- whether hire, ac- any: (1) person refuse to preg- due payment nies for “disabilities upgrade or refer cept, classify, register, nancy resulting or disorders therefrom” employ- discharge any employment, for constitutes sex discrimination. ee, employ- or discriminate in otherwisе case, against employ- Throughout any applicant II. this ment the Cedar race, or because of any employee ordinance and the Iowa Act ment Civil creed, sex, or color, pregnant reli- “Whether origin, national females are or gion, applicant or of such ancestry the same or differently treated is not the employee, based the nature unless is whether аll point. focal The true issue of the occupation." disabilities, included, pregnancy are treat- words, ques- ed same. other virtually This is identical with regulation tion not whether is has 601A.6(l)(a) The Code. discriminatory application within the Perhaps we should state here what class established but rather does it dis- case is It is not about. not a determi ** singled criminate as to the class out. policies that must bе nation insurance pregnancy-related drawn to include disabili human, “Every sex, regardless of say employer We an must ties. subject physiological crises or disabili- provisions cover such risks because of the the body. regulation ties of Here the Cedar Rapids Ordinance all isolates from other disabili- *4 proscribing discrimination based on sex. physical ties or conditions and makes it subject prоvisions to the expres- Neither is this to be taken as an restricted there- view concerning Noticeably, sion this Court’s abor- in provided. in the case of tion itself. We consider whether debilitating illnesses or other conditions claimant’s was one which disability for required an to cease individual ordinance, not, could under and return employment a fixed time to withhold the its short-term in- benefits following work recovery at a set date policy. come regardless of the wishes or employee’s person medical advice. affected Any Ordinarily our in Cedar decision Parr, pregnancy, disability, 227 other than ceases Community School District v. (Iowa 1975), disposi- N.W.2d 486 would be and returns employment thereafter to However, tive of this case. the decision he or it prop- work when she alone deems Supreme the United in States Court Gener- er do so. But is not the case this Gilbert, 125, al 429 97 Electric Co. v. U.S. pregnant. where the individual becomes 401, (1976) 343 us S.Ct. 50 L.Ed.2d causes Unquestionably, such discriminate treat- examine Parr anew. This is because Gener- (227 ment is linked alone.” to sex al opinion Electric reversed 4th Circuit N.W.2d, p. 493). strongly which we had relied in Parr. very principles espoused These were the Parr In we held that a school re- board Co., in Gilbert v. General Electric 519 F.2d quirement compelled pregnant teach- (4th 1975). they repu- 661 were Cir. When to leave employment ers their at the end of Supreme diated United Court States pregnancy, fifth month restricted Circuit, our Parr case reversing in the 4th right delivery, their to return work after General Elec- with was on a collision course and denied them benefits for ab- tric v. Gilbert. sexually due dis- sences criminatory. are almost in The facts General Electric quote opinion: We from that present with those in the case. identical argue por- “Plaintiffs vigorously too, There, disability plan ex- company preg- of the regulation [dealing tion with pregnancy. out of arising cluded disabilities nancy dis- sexually does not absences] such an exclu- was whether criminate because men and womеn are sex discrimination in viola- sion constituted similarly regarding circumstanced VII of the Act of tion of Title Civil simply stated, pregnancy. More it is con- 2000e, seq.) et (42 U.S.C. § that all tended since the treats is, present pur- Iowa Act Civil e., similarly alike, those i. circumstanced poses, same as act. the federal teachers, pregnant there sex exists no case of argument statutory
discrimination. This misses General Electric is a the mark. company’s plan It construction. held the
866
(2d
Department,
1024
Long Lines
513 F.2d
Title VII.
provisions
not violate
does
1033,
vacated,
97
Aiello,
1975),
429 U.S.
S.Ct.
case, Geduldig
417 U.S.
v.
Cir.
An earlier
v.
724,
(1977); Wetzel Liber
2485, 2490-2491,
744
484, 494-496,
41
50 L.Ed.2d
94 S.Ct.
(3d
Co.,
female
sex.
classification V.
The case must be remanded
answer
pregnancy
which relies on
as the determi-
questions
several
which the trial court
native criterion is a
based
distinction
unnecessary
found it
answer
because of
sex.
Quaker. Quaker
its decision in favor of
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
raised a
number
constitutional
issues. It
Disability
also claims its Short-Term
In-
рregnancy-related
“The exclusion of
exempt
prohibition
Plan
from the
come
is
disabilities,
distinction,
a sex-based
from
against sex
because it
a
discrimination
is
comprehensive
disability plan consti-
system”
plan
“retirement
or benefit
within
tutes
pro-
discrimination. While men are
meaning
69.17 of the ordinance.
of §
comprehensive coverage
vided
for all dis-
(See
601A.12,
Code.)
also
These are
abilities which necessitate their absence
originally
matters to be decided
the trial
work, including
from
male-specific disa-
court, not by us.
bilities,
provided
women are not
the as-
comprehensive protection
surance of
One
from VI.
other matter
remains.
inability
during
asked,
to earn
a peri-
income
claimant
and the Commission al-
*
**
Comment,
lowed,
disability.
od of
See
class action relief to “all women who
Geduldig v.
Pregnancy
Aiello:
Classifica-
took
related
leave
* *
*
3, 1973,
tions and the
Definition
Sex Discrimi-
up
until the
nation,
Law
Columbia
Review
date”
the Commission’s order.
Comment,
(1975);
Love’s Labors
order,
In view of
we
our remand
Conceptions
Lost: New
of Maternity
should
though
address this
even
it
matter
Leaves,
7 Harvard C.R.-C.L.L.Rev.
may not
subject
be
here for
properly
260-62 (1972).”
review.
We hold the
with
Commission
As Justice
in his dissent
Brennan said
out
grant class relief.
authority to
Electric,
General
414, 50
at 362:
apply
of
They
Rules
Civil Procedure.
to
“Surely it
sug-
offends commonsense to
1,
actions in the courts
this
of
state. Rule
* * *
gest
that a classification re- R.C.P.
not,
volving
pregnancy
around
is
at the
general
jurisdictions
The
rule in other
is
minimum, strongly ‘sex related’.”
procedure
that rules of civil
do
apply
not
Stevens, dissenting
Justice
in the same
prоceedings
they spe
administrative
unless
case,
(429
161,
added this comment
at
cifically
Miller, 4
provide.
Wright
so
See
&
421,
97
369-70):
S.Ct.
50 L.Ed.2d at
Procedure, Civil,
Federal Practice
and
“Does a contract
company
between a
1013, p.
(1969).
§
74-75
See NLRB v. Rex
and its employees which treats the risk of
Industries, Inc.,
Disposables Div. of D.H.J.
pregnancy
absenteeism
by
caused
differ-
588,
1974);
(5th
494 F.2d
591-92
Cir.
Raser
any
from
ently
other kind of absence
NLRB,
(6th
Tanning Co. v.
795 53, 581, 55 ucts, Inc., N.E.2d jurisdiction 259 Ind. 290 and void. Gaddy, 328 Bank (Ind.1972); Hancock of the Commission’s or- 3. The 361, (Miss.1976); Colgate-Palm- 364 So.2d is class relief grant der attempting 278, 225 Dorgan, N.W.2d 282 olive void. (N.D.1974). pro- case for further 4. The is remanded to, including, but limited ceedings only have Administrative bodies re- matters a determination conferred, is specifically or power such as is V. ferred in Division the statute necessarily implied, be Administra creating against them. Am.Jur.2d are assessed Costs Law, 70, (1962); Howell pp. tive Oats Co. Hubbartt, 246 Iowa School Board v. and REMANDED. REVERSED 1273-74, 70 N.W.2d except HARRIS and All Justices concur good appears of the rule in A statement MASON, JJ., County Dep’t. Merit who dissent. Fahey v. Cook Pоlice Bd., N.E.2d Ill.App.3d HARRIS, (dissenting). Justice (1974), said: where the court place perspective first We should in ques- boards and commissions “[The question presented appeal. exact powers purely statutory exercise tion] must be is whether woman governing and must find within the stat- as if unable to work paid disability benefits any utes exercise of warrant for the It seems to me pregnancy. result of * * * authority. claimed Administrа- presupposes necessarily majority opinion authority agencies possess only tive such the economic alone left to face women are by express provi- is legally conferred I consequences pregnancy. am unsure as, implication sion law such fair or valid, this fac- any premise is even in such intendment, incident to and includ- and is occurs to me the financial tual situation. It conferred authority expressly ed in the pregnancy are the resulting from burdens carrying out and ac- purpose for the is as women. This of men as well concern objectives complishing the for which * ** family And certainly true in the situation. agencies those were created. provide some tools in our statutes at least Thus, cannot it has been said that bodies hope making true as tо fathers of it provisions of a extend these substantive Chapters 675 children born out of wedlock. legislative enactment nor create substan- 252A, enough It The Code. rights through tive exercise of their rule ” * * * preg- become point out that women making powers. involved with them are also nant. men no We can find authorization in consequences. left to share the economic either 601A or in the Cеdar Ch. *7 entirely I the confidence the cannot share which can be said to authorize ordinance authority of this majority expresses in relief. class action grant the commission mat- say in such “have the final Commission’s portion We hold both majority concedes so case ters” as this. The purported which do in this order opinion it is conse rests beyond jurisdiction, was ordinance its Code, arе in all quently 601A.6(l)(a), void. and § respects provisions identical with material summary VII. we hold as follows: of the Civil Act U.S.C. provision excluding pregnancy 1. The 2000e, seq. et § Quaker’s and related disorders from majority points Geduldig sex- also out Disability Short-Term Plan Aiello, 2485, 41 in violation of based discrimination 417 U.S. S.Ct. Rapids (1974) provisions 69.11 of the Cedar such L.Ed.2d 256 decided Rights Ordinance. are not as are involved in the ordinance equal protection or- violative of the clause 2. The of the Commission’s majority finding der And the a violation of Ch. the federal constitution. Gilbert, out points General Electric Co. v.
(1976) provisions holds con- the identical in
tained Act are vio- Civil
lated an identical exclusion of pregnancy Finally
benefits. the majority concedes the
General Electric opinion all but withdraws
the authority upon which we principally
relied for our in decision Cedar Com- Rapids Parr,
munity School District 227 N.W.2d (Iowa 1975). power in Our the matter
may prove to be absolute. The econom- stakes
ic in are not those
women alone.
In any event it is clear we should now
pay as respectful much attention to the
federal interpretations as we did in Cedar Parr, Community School District v.
supra. general The effect of federal
interpretations similar ours of statutes explained State,
was in detail in Hubbard v. (Iowa 1969).
163 N.W.2d
I believe the trial court was right its
reliance on General Electric Co. I find
nothing to show the exclusion of pregnancy benefits by Oats pretext designed to effect an invidious
discrimination against members of
female sex.
I would affirm. J.,
MASON, joins in this dissent.
WEBSTER COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, Plaintiff, FLATTERY, Judge,
Edward J. Chief District,
Second Judicial State of
Iowa, Defendant. *8 60825.
No.
Supreme Court of Iowa.