評論
打印
Today in the Supreme Court of the United states, a case involving maternity leave:
今天，美國最高法院接了一起涉及產假的案件：
at issue whether states may require employers to guarantee that pregnant workers are able to return to their jobs after a limited period of unpaid disability leave.
爭論各州是否可以要求雇主保證懷孕員工在有限無薪產假后仍能重返工作崗位。
NPR's Nina Totenberg reports.
NPR尼娜·托滕伯格報道。
Nine states already have laws or regulations that require all employers to protect the jobs of workers who are disabled by pregnancy or childbirth.
此前九個州份已經出臺相關法律法規，要求所有雇主必須確保員工在懷孕或分娩后仍維持工作崗位。
Depending on what the Supreme Court rules in the case it heard today, those laws will either die or flourish.
這些法律是廢是留，取決于最高法院對今日審理案件的判決。
The test case is from California.
這個案件來自加利福尼亞州。
It began with Lillian Garland, the receptionist at California Federal Savings and Loan.
一切從加利福尼亞州聯邦儲蓄貸款銀行的接待員莉蓮·加蘭開始。
In 1982, she returned to work after having a child and found she had no job.
1982年，她生完孩子后意欲重返工作崗位，卻發現自己丟了工作。
"After working for California Federal for over three and a half years, I was told at that time they no longer had a position available for me.
“此前我已在加利福尼亞州聯邦儲蓄貸款銀行工作了三年半多，但他們告訴我，職位已經沒了。
My question was, 'Well, what about the job that I've had for so many years?'
那我想問，“那么，我做了這么多年的工作呢？”
And they said, 'We hired the person that you trained in your place.' I was in shock."
他們說：“我們雇了你之前在那里培訓的人。”我震驚了。
Officials at California Federal say Garland should not have been surprised,
加利福尼亞州聯邦儲蓄貸款銀行的官員稱加蘭不該感到驚訝，
that she'd been told at the time she took pregnancy leave that her job was not guaranteed.
她在懷孕期間，我們已經告知她，并不保證她回來后，職位還為她保留。
But the fact is that California law requires all employers in the state to provide up to four months' disability leave for pregnant workers.
但事實是，加利福尼亞州法律要求該州所有雇主應為懷孕員工提供長達四個月的休假。
The leave time is unpaid, and it is only available to women who, because of Pregnancy or childbirth, are physically unable to work.
休假期間工資不再支付，它只適用于那些因懷孕或分娩而無法工作的婦女。
The law does require that such workers get back the same job unless business necessity makes that impossible.
法律規定，除非商業必要性促使工作無法完成，否則這些工人必須恢復休假前的工作。
So when Lillian Garland was told she couldn't have her old job back, she filed discrimination charges against the bank.
所以當莉蓮·加蘭被告知她無法重返原來的工作崗位時，她對銀行提出歧視指控。
The bank then challenged the California pregnancy disability law in court, claiming that the state law amounted to illegal sex discrimination.
銀行隨即在法庭上質疑加利福尼亞州的懷孕保障法律，聲稱州法律等同于非法的性別歧視。
The bank's reasoning went like this:
銀行的邏輯是這樣的：
Federal law bans discrimination in employment based on pregnancy,
聯邦法律禁止以懷孕為基礎的就業歧視，
but the state law mandates disability leave to women for pregnancy while denying the same leave time to men who are disabled by other ailments,
但是州法律卻規定懷孕婦女在懷孕期間可以休假，而休假時間卻與因其他疾病無法工作的男性不同，
such as heart attacks and strokes.
比如心臟病和中風。
California counters that the state law does not discriminate between men and women,
加利福尼亞州政府稱州法律并沒有造成性別歧視，
that it treats them both the same as to all ailments, but grants disability leave only to pregnant workers.
他們對所有的疾病都一視同仁，但只給予懷孕員工以休假權利。
Moreover, California argues that the state law in fact equalizes the situation between men and women,
此外，加利福尼亞州政府認為，州法律實際上均衡了男女之間的狀況，
allowing them both to have children without losing their jobs.
讓他們有孩子而不失去工作。
The pregnancy disability case has produced some strange bedfellows.
懷孕休假案激發了一些奇怪的共鳴。
The Reagan Administration is siding with the California business community in arguing that federal law requires no special treatment for pregnancy.
里根政府與加利福尼亞商界合作，認為聯邦法律無需對懷孕員工進行特殊照顧。
many of the major national woman's organizations agree,
許多主要的全國婦女組織也都贊同，
but argue that the way to cure the problem is to give everybody unpaid disability leave in case of illness.
但認為，解決這個問題的方法是給予每個人無薪病假。
Other woman's organizations, particularly in California, argue that singling out pregnancy for special treatment is not sex discrimination.
其他婦女組織，特別是在加利福尼亞的婦女組織，認為孕期特別照顧不是性別歧視。
Feminist Betty Friedan defends the California law.
女權主義者貝蒂·弗萊頓為加利福尼亞州法律申辯。
"It's not discrimination against men to do something about the fact that women give birth to children.
“對婦女生育一事，并不對男性構成歧視。
It's a fact of life. If men could carry the baby, if men could go through the nine months,
這是生活的事實。如果男人能帶著孩子，如果男人能經歷那九個月，
if men could have the labor pain, you know, they also should have coverage for pregnancy.
如果男人有分娩痛苦，你知道，他們也應該享有懷孕保險。
You're not discriminating against men; you're recognizing a fact of life: that women are different than men."
你不是在歧視男人，你是在認識生活的事實：女人和男人不同。
On the other side, the lawyer for the bank, Ted Olson, argues that special treatment for pregnancy is obviously discrimination,
另一方面，銀行的律師泰德·奧爾森認為，對懷孕的特殊對待顯然就是歧視。
and that California companies risk being sued by one group of people if they follow federal law and by another group of people if they follow state law.
加利福尼亞州的公司如果遵循聯邦法律，聽從另外一方，如果他們遵守州法，就有可能面臨起訴。
"The California law requires special treatment of pregnancy; the federal law requires equal treatment of pregnancy.
加利福尼亞州法律要求對懷孕員工進行特殊照顧；而聯邦法律要求平等對待妊娠。
An employer is entitled to know which law it must follow."
雇主有權知道他們到底應須遵守哪個法律。”
The fact is, thought, that much of the California business community objects, most of all, to being told that it has to provide any disability leave.
事實上，加利福尼亞商業實體，大多數都被告知他們必須提供任何無法在崗的休假。
Here is Don Butler, President of the Merchants and Manufacturers Association, which is a party to this law suit.
這是唐·巴特勒，商人和制造商協會主席，這起法律訴訟的當事方。
"What we have to get back to, though, is who's going to set the disability leave.
“但我們必須重新考慮的是，誰將設立這個假期。
Is the federal government, is the state of California, or are we, the employers, going to set?
是聯邦政府，是加利福尼亞州，還是我們，雇主，將設立？
You, the employee, have the choice of working for our company under the following conditions or working for another company under other conditions.
你，雇員，可以選擇在我們所設立的條件下為我們公司工作，也可以選擇在別人所設立的條件下為別的公司工作。
And I believe that that was what built this country to be a great free enterprise system.
我相信這正是這個國家能成就偉大自由的企業制度的原因。
And if we're going to legislate it, then we're going to destroy a lot of the incentives to..."
如果我們要立法，那么我們就要破壞很多激勵機制…”
"But basically you don't want to be told to have a disability policy at all." "Right."
“但基本上你不想被告知存在這種政策。”“是的。”
In the Supreme Court this morning, perhaps the pivotal question was asked by Justice Louis Powell,
今天早上在最高法院，也許路易斯·鮑威爾法官提出了一個關鍵問題，
who posed a hypothetical situation to California Deputy Attorney General Marion Johnston.
他對加利福尼亞副檢察長瑪麗恩·莊士敦提出了一個假設。
"Let us assume," said Justice Powell,
“讓我們假設，”鮑威爾法官說。
"that a man and a woman in the same company leave their jobs on the same day: he, because he is ill; she because she's about to have a child.
“同一家公司的一男一女在同一天辭去工作，因為男的病了，女的快要生孩子了。
And they return on the same day, but under the California law she gets her job back and he does not.
而他們又在同一天回來了，但根據加利福尼亞州的法律，女的得到了她的工作，而男的沒有。
Is that fair?" asks Justice Powell. Lawyer Johnston responded, "It may not be fair, but it's legal.
這公平嗎？”鮑威爾法官問道。律師莊士敦回答說：“這可能不公平，但它合法。
California law," she said, "simply requires that employers treat all their employees, men and women, in the same way with respect to pregnancy.
加利福尼亞州的法律，“她說，“只是要求雇主對于所有的男性和女性雇員尊重妊娠，一視同仁。
But, since men don't get pregnant, they don't get the time off."
但是，因為男人不會懷孕，所以他們沒有休息時間。”
A decision in the California case is not expected until next year.
加利福尼亞案的判決直到明年才有可能得出。
I'm Nina Totenberg in Washington.
我是尼娜·托滕伯格，華盛頓報道。
