Wimberly v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri
United States Supreme Court
479 U.S. 511, 107 S. Ct. 821, 93 L. Ed. 2d 909 (1987)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Linda Wimberly (plaintiff) requested a leave of absence from her employment at the J. C. Penney Company (Penney) because she was pregnant. Penney granted Wimberly leave without guarantee of reinstatement, meaning that Wimberly would be rehired if a position was available when she was ready to return to work. When Wimberly notified Penney that she wanted to return, no positions were available. Wimberly filed a claim for unemployment-compensation benefits, which was denied under a Missouri law that disqualified claimants who left work voluntarily and without good cause attributable to their work or their employer. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (defendant) upheld the denial on administrative appeal, finding that Wimberly stopped working because of her pregnancy and, therefore, left work voluntarily and without good cause attributable to her work or her employer. Wimberly’s case reached the Missouri Supreme Court, which affirmed the denial of benefits, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) prohibited a state from disqualifying an unemployment claimant who left her job due to pregnancy.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.