*1 870 TURNER, Plaintiff,

Mary Ann

DEPARTMENT SE OF EMPLOYMENT Board of the CURITY and Review of In Utah, dustrial of Defendants. Commission

No. 13395.

Supreme Court of Utah. 4,

Feb. 1975. Parsons, Lundberg

Constance K. of Behle Latimer, City, plaintiff. & Salt Lake for Romney, Atty. Gen., Vernon B. Edgar Gen., Denny, Sp. Atty. M. Asst. Lake Salt City, for defendants.

ELLETT, Justice: plaintiff The appeals herein from de- a nial unemployment of benefits for 18 weeks, 12 before 6 delivery and after of her parties child. stipulated The to the case, facts of this to wit: Mrs. Turner separated was involuntarily from her work for reasons not related to pregnancy. She unemployment drew compensation until 12 expected weeks before the date of the birth again of her child and commencing 6 weeks thereafter. was She entitled 36 to pay weeks during year, her but due to the provisions of relating the statute preg- to nancy, she was only able to collect for 30 weeks. question1

The statute in reads: An individual ineligible shall be for benefits .

(h) any For week (1) within the twelve calendar prior weeks to the ex- pected date of such individual’s child- birth and within the 6 calendar weeks after the date childbirth; of such and (2) during any week unemployment of it when is by the commission that found partial her total or unemployment due is to pregnancy. [Emphasis added.] Mrs. Turner attacks the statute above set being out as I, unconstitutional under Art. 35-4^5, (Replacement 4b). 1. Sec. U.O.A.1953 Vol.

871 *2 Utah, pregnancy which her no constitutional re- 2, of violates the Constitution of Sec. quirement. reads: ruling in the The of the af- political power is inherent Commission is

All are firmed. No costs are awarded. governments and all free people; authority for their founded on their MAUGHAN, TUCKETT and JJ., con- benefit, they and equal protection and cur. reform their right the to alter or have may public as welfare government the CROCKETT, spe- (concurring Justice require. cially) : is in vio- claims that the statute She also opinion, I concur with the main but add IV, 1, lation of Art. Sec. which reads: intending any some without observations of rights disparagement The of of the State I realize citizens thereof. the likeli- be and office shall not gets Utah to vote hold hood that its rationale to underlying abridged problem disposes denied or on account of sex. the core of it the and of way may and citizens of this appre- Both male female in a more adroit than I civil, enjoy politi- Nevertheless, equally purpose, shall all my ciate. for own State rights privileges. sup- and religious propositions cal and which think I state two I and port the decision of the Commission Is question poses she is this: The opin- by the affirmance thereof the main in that it de the statute set out above void ion. to rights given nies to her are which unemployment purpose The of the com- males ? pensation system provide compensa- is to do not think a man be We so. Should persons un- involuntarily tion for are who pregnant, he was unable to work because employed are available and who for apply it equally the statute would to him as employment.1 does do is to to her. What she should respect to course of nature with The repeal biological work for the of the law require as to pregnancy is so well known get of should it amended so nature. She of expatiation. the no I think restriction equally that in men shared with women before compensation during the 12 weeks bearing prevail If children. she could a delivery baby of a is after and 6 weeks upon things, the Creator to so order Great harmony with requirement, in reasonable guilty violating equal she would be of the 2 statute; purpose of the the above stated protection of the law she to it unless saw possible improper safeguard against a and that man could share in the thrill and also many There are predations on the fund. glory of Motherhood. bearing and rear- in the burdens involved just unequal It things as bad to treat is children, by borne ing which must be of equals equal things as it is to treat une- as responsibility, or in those who take on that qually. pregnancy In the matter there of by gov- assisted other exigencies, certain way equality is find between men no to for system But the programs. ernmental and The so or- women. Creator Great involuntarily un- compensation persons for difference, few dained the and there are employed are available for work was who change women who would wish to the situ- designed to extend to that not intended nor ation. area. nothing in the There is Constitu HENRIOD, in the views J., concurs C. guarantees unemployment tion com which expressed concurring opinion in of the pensation any person. deny preg to To a CROCKETT, pay working during nant woman for not J. pregnancy (c), U.C.A.1953; different is a valid basis for v. 2. That Martinez

1. Sec. 35-4-4 Dept. Employment see Review, individuals and treatment of classification Geduldig of Se Board of 484, Aiello, 94 curity, 131, U.S. S.Ct. v. 417 P.2d Utah 2d 477 587. 25 (1974). 2485, 41 L.Ed.2d 256