This document summarizes a 1973 Supreme Court case, Cleveland Board of Education v. Lefleur, in which female teachers challenged mandatory maternity leave policies on the grounds that they discriminated against pregnant women. The policies required women to take unpaid leave early in their pregnancy and prohibited them from returning to work until the following semester after giving birth. The women argued this violated their 5th and 14th amendment rights. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the school board's policies were overly restrictive and in violation of the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments as well as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

1. 4/14/2015
Discrimination in the Workplace
Leading Diverse Teams
By: Tunisia I.E. Al-Salahuddin
Colorado State University Global Campus
Master of Science-Organizational Leadership
Instructor: Dr. Amy Hakim
Abstract
Within the work place today many employers are recognizing that women need time off when
pregnant to deliver and care for their child. The Cleveland Board of Education vs Lefleur showcases
how a group of mothers with their attorneys filed a law suit to stop the school board from forcing
mothers from taking an early leave of absents. Within this essay discussion I will elaborate on the
findings within the case that made it evident that behavior of the school board was clearly a
discrimination mater.

2. Running Head: Discrimination in the Workplace 1
Introduction
In 1973 the supreme courts received a law suit against the Cleveland Ohio school
board regarding the rights of women to continue working during their pregnancy with
having to take an early leave of absence, an un-paid leave of absence, and the ability to
return to work soon after delivering her baby. Meaning the mother/teacher would have to
take the option to return to work the following semester. According to Findlaw.com, “In
addition to the mandatory termination provisions, both the Cleveland and Chesterfield
County rules contain limitations upon a teacher's eligibility to return to work after giving
birth. Again, the school boards offer two justifications for the return rules - continuity of
instruction and the desire to be certain that the teacher is physically competent when she
returns to work. As is the case with the leave provisions, the question is not whether the
school board's goals are legitimate, but rather whether the particular means chosen to
achieve those objectives unduly infringe upon the teacher's constitutional liberty” (FL,
2015). This case and all issues regarding mother teaching during and after child birth
where brought before the Supreme Courts to be settled as a discrimination case which
lead to the ruling regarding the due process within the due process clause within the 14th
constitutional amendment. This essay discussion will intricate on the points of: The Laws
Pertaining to the Discrimination Issues, Laws and the Situation, and Ethical Issues

3. Running Head: Discrimination in the Workplace 2
Discrimination in the Workplace
(The Discriminatory Situation)
The discriminatory situation is within the 1973 case Cleveland Board of Education v.
Lafleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974). Arguments where: Pregnant women within the work place be
given equal rights as their co-workers even though they are child barring. The issue of women
being made to take a leave of absence early, take an early leave of absence, take an unpaid leave
of absence, and return to work the following school semester was the arguing points within the
Cleveland Board of Education v. Lafleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974). The women whom brought suite
where implying that the rules where not constitutionally correct and discriminatory.
The Laws Pertaining to the Discrimination Issues
 The women within this case stated that their constitutional 5th
and 14th
amendments were violated and along with the due process.
Laws and the Situation
The 14th
amendment is one of the amendments that gives people the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When these women filed this law suit against the
Cleveland Board of Education they felt as though the board of education was depriving
them and their families by trying to put them into some sort of poverty state. The 14th
amendment states, “The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the Federal
Government not deprive individuals of "life, liberty, or property," without due process of
the law and an implicit guarantee that each person receive equal protection of the laws”
(FL, 2015).

4. Running Head: Discrimination in the Workplace 3
1964 Civil Rights Act
This act help alleviate the act of the community, employers, and others toward people
regardless of their religion, race, color, or origin. This Civil Rights Act was ground
breaking on all levels to help those in need who were discriminated. The women
involved within this case felt as though their civil rights where being broken. “Proponents
of this landmark legislation were as ardent as its critics. They hailed the act, which
increased damage awards available to women and minorities who prove unlawful
discrimination by employers, as an important tool for opening labor markets. By making
discrimination more costly, supporters argued, the law would force greater fairness in
dealings with protected workers. Earlier antidiscrimination provisions, such as the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and affirmative action, did, in fact, improve things” (HBR, 2004).
The women felt their civil rights were violated merely by them deciding to have children
and they felt as though they were not given equal pay and rights as some of the teachers
whom did not have children or their male counterparts.
Ethical Issues
The ethical issues stated in this case come from the argument that the pregnant women
where not receiving the same amount of pay as their co-workers and they were not being
treated fairly by the organization by whom they were employed by. The question was
is it ethical for them to discriminate on the women? Per the 1964 affirmative action civil
rights laws that where passed it was not ethical for these women to be discriminated
against. According to the 1964 civil rights law, “In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 88-
352 (78 Stat. 241). The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the
basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The word "sex" was added at

5. Running Head: Discrimination in the Workplace 4
the last moment” (NA,2015). This act was also a help that influenced the decision made
within this case.
Conclusion
The 14th
amendment and the 1964 Civils Rights Affirmative Action law where important
factors in this case. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974) stated the
rules involved where overly restrictive toward pregnant women. The schools policies and
procedures within the county schools violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment along with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This
decision, which unmistakably struck down binding maternity leave rules, was an extreme win for
the women's movement.

6. Running Head: Discrimination in the Workplace 5
References
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur. Retrieved April 14, 2015, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Board_of_Education_v._LaFleur
The Bias Backfire. (2004, November 1). Retrieved April 14, 2015, from
https://hbr.org/2004/11/the-bias-backfire
FindLaw | Cases and Codes. Retrieved April 14, 2015, from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=414&invol=632
Glidden, W. (2013). Enforcing Liberty and Equality in the States. In Congress and the
Fourteenth Amendment: Enforcing Liberty and Equality in the States. Washington, DC:
Lexington Books.
US Constitution - 5th and 14th Amendments. Retrieved April 14, 2015, from
http://finduslaw.com/us-constitution-5th-14th-amendments#1