Why Fmla Was Enacted?

In today's working society, families are faced with conflicts between both their work and family responsibilities. While people are at work, employees must find suitable and reliable arrangements for their children or their elderly parents. It is difficult to be able to take time off even when the employee themselves are ill. The Family and Medical Leave Act provides employees the opportunity to take time to care for their family.

Though the Act was signed into action in 1993, there has been a long history of unfair labor practices concerning family and/or medical leave since the early 1900s. Although not common knowledge, family medical leave has been an issue in this country for the past 100 years. The most significant recent development regarding this issue is The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Because there is an immense amount of information on Family Medical Leave, this paper will be focusing on the enactment of The Family Medical Leave Act.

Early 1900s

The burgeoning industrial revolution at the turn of the 20th century made it inevitable that women would join the work force. But, there were no laws enacted which specifically target protection of women in the workforce. In fact, labor was cheap and management exploitive. Laborers were being forced to work long hours without additional compensation. This time saw significant strides in women's rights. Women were striving for suffrage and equal recognition under the law. It was accomplished through petitions, going through the courts, rallies, public debates, and picketing. Although effective, working conditions for women were not equivalent to those of men. It was not until the creation of labor unions and the eventual inclusion of women into these unions that there is advancement in the working conditions for women.

Muller v. Oregon 1908

From my research I found that Muller v Oregon was one of the first cases in which women's working conditions were argued. In September 1905, an employee of Grand Laundry in Portland Oregon, Emma Gotcher was required by her employer to work overtime. By requiring her to work over time, Grand Laundry had violated Oregon's ten hour law. The law stated that it was illegal to make women work for more than ten hours a day. Two weeks later, the state of Oregon filed criminal charges against the owner of the laundry shop, Curt Muller. Muller hired a lawyer, and lost his case in the circuit court. He argued that the Oregon law violated his right to contract freely with his workers. Muller appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court and lost yet again.

The state of Oregon hired a very gifted lawyer, Louis Brandies, who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1875. Brandies had gathered a group of people to gather facts on the impact of working hours for women. He concluded that overwork is more disastrous to the health of women than of men, mainly because of women's "special physical organization." He also stated that an overlong work day also affected childbirth and female functions. He said that when hours were reduced there was "extraordinary improvement in physique and morals." "It gave young unmarried working-women the opportunity to learn the art of homemaking, upon which health, welfare, and property of her whole family will depend." (Supreme Court Collection) In short, the state legislature had acted reasonably in limiting women's hours.

Muller's lawyers argued that both women and men alike were entitled to equal protection of the laws. The lawyers said that women were persons and citizens and they were competent to contract without reference to their labor as are men. On February 28, 1908, Associate Justice David Brewer agreed that women's overwork injured the general welfare. He shared his own views by stating that the most important part of the legislation protected women by limiting by contractual powers and this wasn't imposed solely for her benefit, but also largely for the benefits of all. Muller was fined ten dollars.

World War II

Due to the war, the number of women in the workforce increased dramatically. Thus, family leave became an important issue with the increasing amount of women in the workforce. This arose during World War II because many women had to enter the workforce to support their families while their husbands were abroad. Up to this time, there were no legislations on family leave. However, a strong push for legislation did not begin until the late 1970s and 1980s. (Hayes, 2001). The first piece of legislation of this sort was the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which passed in 1978. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act required employers to provide pregnancy disability leave to women if employers also offered other disability benefits to their employees.

Act amendment states that women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment related purposes. "Thus, women disabled due to pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions must be provided with the same benefits as other disabled workers." (Twomey, 417)

The Garland Decision

The Garland Decision is another case that slowly led to the enactment of the Family Medical Leave Act.

California Federal Savings and Loan v. Guerra (Director, Department of Fair Employment & Housing)

Lillian Garland, a receptionist, worked for California Federal Savings and Loan (Cal Fed) for several years. In January 1982, she took pregnancy disability leave. When she was able to return to work in April of the same year, she was informed that her job had been filled and that there were no other receptionists or similar positions available. Garland filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which issued an administrative accusation against Cal Fed on her behalf. (The California Fair Employment and Housing Act require employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy). Before a hearing was held on the complaint, Cal Fed challenged the law, and brought an action in Federal District Court. Cal Fed argued that maternity leave statute was discriminatory under the Pregnancy Discrimination