Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Parr, 2--56518

• Citation: 227 N.W.2d 486
• Decision Date: 19 March 1975
• Docket Number: No. 2--56518,2--56518
• Parties: 12 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 54, 9 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,016 CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Cedar Rapids Board of Education, Appellants, v. Joan PARR et al., Appellees, and Elaine Drewis and All Other Named Intervenors, Intervenors, and The Johnston Community School District, Amicus Curiae, and Iowa State Education Association, Amicus Curiae.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

Page 486

227 N.W.2d 486

12 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 54, 9 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,016

CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Cedar Rapids Board of Education, Appellants, v. Joan PARR et al., Appellees, and Elaine Drewis and All Other Named Intervenors, Intervenors,

and

The Johnston Community School District, Amicus Curiae,

and

Iowa State Education Association, Amicus Curiae.

No. 2--56518.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 19, 1975.

James R. Snyder and M. G. Hardestry, Jr., Simmons, Perrine, Albright & Ellwood, Cedar Rapids, for appellants.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., and Roxanne Barton Conlin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.

Lee H. gaudineer, Jr., Austin, McDonald, Myers, Peterson & Gaudineer, Des Moines, for amicus curiae The Johnston Community School Dist Marvin R. Adams and Anna I Shinkle, Dreher, Wilson & Adams, Des Moines, for amicus curiae, Iowa State Ed. Ass'n.

Heard before MOORE, C.J., and RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, HARRIS and McCORMICK, JJ.

RAWLINGS, Justice.

This appeal stems from two related complaints filed April 27, 1972, with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission challenging legality of the Cedar Rapids Community School District maternity leave regulation. The matter comes to us from an adjudication by Linn District Court holding school district regulations violative of The Code 1971, Section 105A.7, quoted Infra. We affirm in part, reverse in part.

Complainants in this case, Joan Parr and Judy McCarthy, were teachers in the Cedar Rapids Community School District (school district).

Joan Parr, a language arts teacher at Harding Junior High School until April 10, 1972, was asked to terminate her duties due to pregnancy in accord with a 1970 school board regulation.

Judy McCarthy, a physical education instructor at Washington High School until March 10, 1972, was also requested to temporarily discontinue her teaching duties for the same reason.

At the times material hereto pregnant employees of the school district were subject to this maternity leave regulation:

'a. Maternity leave of one academic year or a portion thereof may be granted to Any married staff member who has successfully completed the probationary period (two years) of contract employment. All staff members on maternity leave shall return to service as of the beginning of an academic year. Return to service at other times shall be at the convenience of the district.

'b. Maternity leave shall be recommended on an individual basis by the professional staff member's immediate Principal or Supervisor.

'c. Any professional staff member requesting maternity leave shall notify the school administration of condition of pregnancy no later than the third month of such condition and Shall begin leave or shall resign no later than the beginning of the sixth month.

'd. Upon returning to service, such employee on leave shall be granted the total number of leave days accumulated prior to the beginning of the leave of absence in addition to the days allowed for the current year. However, the employee may not charge the maternity leave of absence or any portion thereof against the accumulated sick leave.

'e. Maternity leave of absence shall in no way serve to terminate tenure previously acquired by said employee, nor shall it affect the teacher's position on the salary schedule.

'f. Upon returning to service, the teacher shall be assigned to the same duties or those of a similar nature as were performed prior to the beginning of the leave of absence.

'g. A request for an extension of a maternity leave of absence must be made to the Superintendent of Schools prior to the end of the academic year prior to the time of scheduled expiration of the leave already granted. The extension of the leave is at the option of the Board of Education and may be renewed but one time. If the employee does not return to service at the end of the granted leave period, such employee shall forfeit all rights to tenure and sick leave previously acquired.' (emphasis supplied).

The foregoing, hereafter refered to as the 1970 regulation, was in effect prior to Jlly 1, 1972.

Mrs. Parr's employment was terminated April 10, 1972, at which time she was two months short of completing the two year probationary period. Consequently, Mrs. Parr was not entitled to maternity leave with automatic right to reinstatement of employment. When Mrs. McCarthy's employment was temporarily discontinued May 10, 1972, her two year probationary period had been completed, thus entitling her to maternity leave with reinstatement of employment upon return to work at the beginning of a new academic year.

Effective July 1, 1972, the above quoted 1970 regulation was amended to eliminate completion of the two year probationary period as a prerequisite to maternity leave. Additionally, the triggering automatic six month leave or resignation provision was abolished. The amendment states:

'Maternity leave of one academic year or a portion thereof shall be granted to any pregnant staff member. All staff members on leave shall return to service at the beginning of an academic year or earlier at the convenience of the district.

'Any professional staff member requesting leave shall notify the school administration of the pregnancy no later than the third month of such condition. Prior to the beginning of the sixth month a pregnant staff member, her physician and her immediate supervisor shall agree upon a beginning leave date. The agreed date may be reconsidered upon the recommendation of any one of the three parties. In the event of disagreement, the final decision shall rest with the superintendent.

'Upon returning to service, the employee shall receive credit for the total number of sick leave days accumulated prior to the beginning of the leave of absence in addition of the sick leave days allowed for the current year. However, the employee may not charge the maternity leave of absence or any portion thereof against the accumulated sick leave.

'Upon returning to service, the staff member shall be assigned to the same duties or those of a similar nature as were performed prior to the beginning of the leave of absence as determined by the superintendent. Any staff member who satisfactorily completes at least 90 days of service in any given year shall be eligible for consideration of a step increase.

'A request for an extension of a maternity leave of absence must be made to the superintendent prior to the end of the academic year prior to the time of scheduled expiration of the leave already granted. The extension of the leave is at the option of the Board of Education.' (emphasis supplied,).

This amendment will hereafter be referred to as the 1972 regulation.

Both amendment will hereafter be referred the effect they desired to work past the fifth month of pregnancy. Neither such wish was honored. Admittedly, both teachers had obtained permission from their doctors to continue working. As aforesaid, complaints were filed April 27, 1972, with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission charging the 1970 regulation was sexually discriminatory.

Pursuant to an agreement between commission and school district, the latter filed the instantly involved petition for declaratory judgment, thereby requesting an adjudication as to legality of the 1970 regulation. The Cedar Rapids Community School District, and Board of Education proceeded as plaintiffs, with Mrs. Parr, Mrs. McCarthy and the commission being named defendants. The Johnston Community School District and Iowa State Education Association, both amicus curiae, aligning respectively with plaintiff's and defendant's have accordingly here submitted their briefs.

In trial court defendants, by answer, for the first time attacked the 1972 regulation as also violative of Code § 105A.7. Defendant thereby further moved they be permitted to represent all teachers similiarly situated and affected by either the 1970 or 1972 regulations.

A motion to adjudicate the propriety of defendants' aforesaid class action request was filed by plaintiff. Significantly, trial court refrained from holding defendants could represent those similarly situated as members of a class. Such other teachers were, however, then given permission to intervene as defendants at any time before trial. Apparently no one did so. Since no request was made for a specific ruling on defendants' class action motion that matter is not presented for review. See Bailey v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 179 N.W.2d 560, 562 (Iowa 1970); State v. Hephner, 161 N.W.2d 714, 717 (Iowa 1968); In re Estate of Scholbrock, 224 Iowa 593, 595--596, 277 N.W. 5 (1938).

At close of trial a decree was entered which held the 1970 regulation sexually discriminatory and violative of § 105A.7 because: (1) pregnancy disabilities, sexually linked to females only, were treated differently from other disabilities in that only in the case of pregnancy was the employee required to either discontinue or terminate employment at an arbitrary date and return turn to work at an equally arbitrary time; (2) sick leave benefits normally available to all teachers, male and female, absent from school and suffering from a variety of disabilities, were denied to female employees absent due to pregnancy; and (3) nontenured male employees, i.e., those not having taught for two years, absent for physically disabling reasons, were entitled to leaves of absence with right to reinstatement upon returning to work, whereas nontenured female employees absent because of pregnancy-related disabilities were denied leaves of absence (maternity leave) with right to reinstatement. By said decree other teachers similarly situated were, sua sponte, given leave to intervene within twenty days from the date thereof.

The 1972 regulation was declared sexually discriminatory only to the extent it violated element (2), Supra.

Trial court then awarded Mrs. Parr and Mrs. McCarthy back pay equivalent to what each would have earned throughout the remainder...