Murray v. Waterville Bd. of Ed.
| Decision Date | 15 August 1978 |
| Parties | 19 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 181, 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8575 Lenora A. MURRAY v. WATERVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Sunenblick, Fontaine & Reben by Donald F. Fontaine, Portland (orally), for plaintiff.
James E. Millet, Clyde L. Wheeler, P. A., (orally), Waterville, for defendants.
Joseph E. Brennan, Atty. Gen., Kate Clark Flora, Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for amicus curiae.
Before McKUSICK, C. J., and POMEROY, WERNICK, ARCHIBALD, DELAHANTY and NICHOLS, JJ.
On March 21, 1975 Lenora A. Murray, a public school teacher employed by the Waterville Board of Education (Board), filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission alleging that the Board, its members, and its Superintendent of Schools had discriminated against her on the basis of sex. Subsequently, Mrs. Murray brought an action in Superior Court charging that the Board's 1 refusal to allow her to use accumulated sick leave with pay to cover a period of absence due to temporary disability stemming from childbirth was a violation of 5 M.R.S.A. § 4572(1)(A) 2 of the Maine Human Rights Act, 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 4551, Et seq. She further alleged that the Board's actions deprived her of her right to minimum sick leave statutorily provided under 20 M.R.S.A. § 1951 and deprived her of her rights as guaranteed by Me.Const., Art. 1, § 6-A.
After Mrs. Murray returned to work, the Board intended to deduct certain amounts from her paycheck 3 to cover the period of her absence, since she had already been paid her full salary during the time she was disabled. Accordingly, Mrs. Murray requested relief in the form of a preliminary and permanent injunction. 4 After the preliminary injunction was granted, Mrs. Murray moved for summary judgment on her request for a permanent injunction. The injunction was then granted on the grounds that the Board's actions were "In violation of (Mrs. Murray's) right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex in the terms and conditions of her employment." The Board then appealed.
The following pertinent facts are not in dispute. Mrs. Murray had been employed by the Waterville Board of Education since September 1, 1972. At the time she gave birth, she missed eighteen teaching days. It is clear that Mrs. Murray was medically disabled during that period and, in fact, took the time off on the advice of her physician. Mrs. Murray did not take time off for a "Maternity leave " in order to adjust to her new family.
Mrs. Murray was entitled to a certain amount of sick leave with full pay, both under 20 M.R.S.A. § 1951 and under an Agreement then in force between the Waterville Teachers Association and the Board. She had accumulated sufficient sick leave days by the time of her absence to cover the eighteen days. It was the policy of the Board, however, to exclude pregnancy and childbirth from sick leave coverage while allowing coverage for all other temporary disabilities of whatever origin.
On appeal, the Board raises several contentions. Among them, it asserts that, under the rationale of Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, 94 S.Ct. 2485, 41 L.Ed.2d 256 (1974), the denial of sick leave to pregnant teachers does not violate equal protection. Moreover, it claims that its actions are not in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act.
We deny the Board's appeal. We do not reach the contentions raised by the Board, however. Instead we find that, under the circumstances presented in this case, State law 20 M.R.S.A. § 1951 provides that sick leave covers temporary disability due to pregnancy. 5
Section 1951 provides in part that
Each administrative unit operating public schools within the State shall grant all certified teachers, except substitute teachers as defined by the commissioner, a minimum annual sick leave of 10 school days accumulative to a minimum of 90 school days without loss of salary. . . . Any other plan of sick leave which, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Educational and Cultural Services, provides At least equal benefits may be approved in lieu thereof. . . . (emphasis supplied)
It is thus apparent that a school teacher is entitled to minimum benefits under a sick leave plan and that no other plan may be used if it provides less benefit than that accorded by statute. The question presented here for resolution, then, is whether sick leave includes, as a mandatory benefit to which teachers are entitled as a matter of right, a temporary medical disability associated with pregnancy.
We conclude that it does.
Nowhere in our statutory scheme is there any definition of the types of disabilities for which sick leave may be granted. 6 With no statutory definitions to guide us, we therefore turn to an analysis of the apparent purpose of providing sick leave.
In a case concerning issues similar to those presented here which was submitted to the Voluntary Labor Arbitration Tribunal by the Waterville Teachers' Association and the Waterville Board of Education, an arbitrator found that the purpose of sick leave benefits, as granted under an agreement entered into between the two parties, was "To provide compensation to teachers for days lost from work on the grounds that a competent medical doctor has instructed the teacher not to work." Waterville Teachers Association v. Waterville Board of Education, Case No. 1139-0933-76 (1976) (Pinkus, Arb.) (unreported). The arbitrator later phrased the issue before him as "Not whether sick leave should be Expanded to include childbirth but rather whether childbirth or any other particular cause of physical inability to work should be Carved out of the general category of absence on the basis of doctor's orders." (emphasis supplied) We find these statements instructive in construing the statute from which sick leave benefits for teachers derive.
The clear purpose of such legislation is to remove some of the economic burdens attendant on temporary absences from work caused by a temporary medical disability. The removal of such burdens contributes to the economic stability of the individual or his family and is sound public policy. Given this purpose, we find no basis in reason for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winks v. Board of Ed. of Normal Community Unit School Dist. No. 5 of McLean County
...were entitled to use sick leave for temporary medical disabilities associated with pregnancy and childbirth. (Murray v. Waterville Board of Education (Me.1978), 390 A.2d 516; Millinocket School Committee v. Millinocket Teachers Association (Me.1978), 390 A.2d 1106.) The court in Murray note......
-
Islesboro School Committee v. Califano, s. 78-1302
...temporary medical disability for which certified teachers are entitled to take sick leave as a mandatory benefit. Murray v. Waterville Bd. of Educ., 390 A.2d 516, 519 (Me.1978). See also Millinocket School Committee v. Millinocket Teachers Assn., 390 A.2d 1106 (Me.1978). The retroactive eff......
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...were no lower court findings; Littlefield, by its own terms, does not apply. A case more nearly on point is Murray v. Waterville Board of Education, 390 A.2d 516 (Me.1978), holding that an appellee need not cross-appeal to raise an issue that merely brings to the attention of the Law Court ......
-
Crowston v. Jamestown Public School Dist. No. 1
..."[a] temporary disability resulting from pregnancy, which a physician deemed to require absence from work, ...." Murray v. Waterville Bd. of Ed., 390 A.2d 516, 519 (Maine 1978). Thus, we conclude as did the trial court that the terms "due to sickness" or "sick leave" necessarily imply a per......