Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
United States Supreme Court
414 U.S. 632, 94 S.Ct. 791, 39 L.Ed.2d 52 (1974)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
The maternity-leave and return policies of the Board of Education of Cleveland, Ohio (Cleveland BOE) (defendant) require a pregnant teacher to (1) give advance notice of her pregnancy, (2) take mandatory unpaid leave starting five months before her due date, (3) refrain from being eligible to return to work until the baby is three months old, and (4) provide medical certification that she is physically fit to return to work after such three-month period. The maternity-leave and return policies of the School Board of Chesterfield County, Virginia (Chesterfield County BOE) (defendant) requires a pregnant teacher to (1) give advance notice of her pregnancy, (2) take mandatory unpaid leave starting four months before her due date, and (3) provide medical certification that she is physically fit to return to work after delivering. Both school boards limit the ability of teachers to return to work in the middle of a school term. Jo Carol LaFleur (plaintiff) and Ann Elizabeth Nelson (plaintiff) sued the Cleveland BOE for violating their constitutional rights. Susan Cohen (plaintiff) sued the Chesterfield County BOE. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among the United States Courts of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 778,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.