# Appendix — General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2097%3A04 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 429 U.S. 125 ## Text | Supreme Court, U. & FILED | RK | MOHASL RODAK, JR., CLE hricoatnsnemeannauncdabsenntinteenmenianetil Supreme Court of the Anited States OCTOBER TERM, 1974 No. 74-1589 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. MARTHA V. GILBERT, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, CLC, et al, Respondents. No. 74-1590 MARTHA V. GILBERT, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIOCL(C, et al, Petitioners, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondent. ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT eee sass. TIT PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI FILED JUNE 17, 1975 CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 6, 1975 (i) TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I Witnesses (Continued): David C. Forrest, M.D. (Continued) Redirect ea Recross . Catherine East Direct Cross . Emma Furch Direct Mary Williams Direct Cross . Barbara Hall Direct Doris Wiley Direct Robert Gordon Delano Direct Cross . Sherrie Elizabeth O’Steen Direct Cross . Curriculum Vitae - Andre E. Hellegers, M.D. . Page 363 366 371 401 414 420 452 (ii) Andre E. Hellegers Direct Cross . Redirect Recross . Brief Resume - Paul H. Jackson . Paul H. Jackson Direct Cross . Redirect Recross . Harvey Helman Direct Cross . Redirect Thomas F. Hilbert, Jr. Direct C4oss_ . Redirect Charles T. Duncan Direct Cross . Curriculum Vitae - George Dewey Wilbanks, Jr. George Dewey Wilbanks, Jr. Direct eo. Cross . Redirect GE Exhibit No. ! GE Exhibit No. 4 $70 574 578 580 611 649 654 665 670 677 692 716 718 720 pest ne GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. GE Exhibit No. 5 7 8 10 . 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 . 21 22 23 24 25 26 (iii) Page 722 722 726 739 732 737 738 740 742 746 748 751 752 754 757 758 759 RS OBS Be Ran etre en tte tare = oles hag Ua NE te Te ere i es eh ae ee ee 411 353 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WEYAND: Q. I believe you said it was statistically true that the complications arising from the pill are less in number than the women who get pregnant. You emphasized — MR. BATTLE: Excuse me, Your Honor, I don’t think that was either the answer or the question. MS. WEYAND: All right. MR. BATTLE: Women that get pregnant are less the number of complications. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Less the number of complications of pregnancy. You emphasized the word “statistically.” Am I correct in inferring that you thought there was something else to be said besides merely statistics on that subject? A. I think that just as a matter of clarification that a complication that results from the taking of the pill and a complication that results from being pregnant are in themselves 100 percent important to that particular indivi- dual. Statistically they compare the number of complications with dire circumstances related to the taking of the pill with those complications of pregnancy with dire circum- stances. When you compare it in that light the incidence is much lower among the girls who are taking the pills, as I understand it. And this is the argument that is proposed by these people. Q. Do you think there are substantial consequences that are not classified as dire consequences? A. I think in most instances except where there has been documented statistical or evaluation of a particular segment of people who have taken these agents, there are many of these so- called complications are missed that are not recorded and they are not reportable. 412 413 364 The patient who has been taking the pill and suddenly dies as a result of a thrombo-embolism, I think this is dramatic, it becomes reportable, and usually a coroner’s case. And these get entered into the statistics. The patient who develops positive birth control pills suppression, ovulation suppression syndrome, I don’t know that we are reporting these. There are people who are interested in them that are investigating this phenomena, these complications. We are slowly picking up more and more of these ad- verse effects. And if you are interested in this subject I think you tend to read more on this subject, and I am interested in the complications. That is not to imply that we do not give the pill, and we still use it with medical indications and we offer contraceptive advice, we usually give the patient her opportunity to select what she and her husband would like to use. Q. I take it that 100 percent of your pregnant patients have a period of hospitalization, do they not? A. We use the term pregnancy here and we keep talking about the normal pregnancy, but there are abnormal pregnancies. Q. They all go to the hospital when they deliver, you have said? A. If we are talking about a normal I would say that 100 percent of these patients go to the hospital. Even if they delivered in a rescue squad, they still go to the delivery table and are examined and kept there for three or four days, yes. Q. So when you said 90 to 95 purcent of the pregnant women suffer no disease, you did not go back to your definition of disease, did you? A. No. If I relate to discomfort aside from the normal state of well-being I probably did not relate that. Q. 100 percent of them have suffered discomfort, did they not? A. I would say — en ee — et Cet Nom et ed ed Oe a ee ne 414 > a — 365 MR. BATTLE: I have tried not to object, but that is awfully leading. THE COURT: She can lead him. MR. BATTLE: It is the testimony. THE COURT: If she-can lead him he deserves it. I don’t think she will4tead him very far. THE WiTNESS: If you are referring to the fact that they required anesthetic for the time of ‘the delivery to relieve the pain and discomfort, the actual delivery process and the episiotomy, or they required medication and/or anesthetic during their labor, then the answer would be a “ MS. WEYAND: That is all the questions I have. THE COURT: Dr. Forrest, I want to be sure I have this straight. I am not sure of the materiality. Did I understand you to say that mofethan 50 percent of your patients, that is of your working patients, stayed home after the first pregnancy and don’t return to work? I know you said it because I wrote it down. Did you mean that? THE WITNESS: No — here again, Judge, I am trying to say that of the patients that I see, and incidentally I have not made a real effort to ask patients, “Do you work, not work, and so forth,” the impressions that we get is through conversations with the patients when they say, “I can’t get here because they don’t want me to come, or I lose too much time at the office.” What I am trying to say is of the patients that we see with their first pegnancy, perhaps 50 to 60 percent of these patients are working. THE COURT: I understood that. THE WITNESS: Now, we see other patients who come in with their second pregnancy orethey are old patients who come back three or four years later. And I think 415 416 366 that there is — that it reduces to probably as low as 25 percent. I am not saying that the patient that I delivered 50 percent of them never go back to work. THE COURT: That is what I wanted to know. THE WITNESS: No, because I don’t know this. THE COURT: All right. Did the Court’s questions prompt any further inquiries from counsel? MR. BATTLE: Just in regard to those questions, Doctor. THE COURT: It must have been more material that I had given it credit for, Mr. Battle, but you go ahead. MR. BATTLE: In that case I have no further questions. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BATTLE: Q. Seriously, you do, in discussing the pre-natal treat- ment and attention, typically find out whether the lady works or whether she is a housewife, or what the nature of her activities are, don’t you? Isn’t this part of the his- tory that you want to have in prescribing? A. I wish- ed I could tell you, Mr. Battle, that I inquire of that spe- cifically. I do not. If it comes to my attention, but I am not really hep on it. I don’t go out and say, “Do you work?” Q. Well, the thing that sort of grabs me is the fact that, as I take it, for 20 years or so, and I knew this to be true before you gave the facts, you see thousands of women a year and deiiver thousands of babies a year. A. Not thousands. Q. No? A. Not thousands a year, sir. Q. Iam sorry. Hundreds. A. I would accept hundreds. ; Q. And you said on direct examination, and it wasn’t particularly surprising to me, I just wanted to develop it Peary Te ‘ibe 417 367 somewhat, that of the first pregnancy you gathered about 50 or 60 percent were working women, that is your — A. Yes. Q. — impression, is it not? A. Yes. Q. And over the years of experience I take it you were using that experience, not just the last year, but over the years of experience in the state of second pregnancy you gathered by the same type of information that about 25 percent were working women. Now, wouldn’t a fair inference be that more than 50 percent of your patients do not return to work after the first child is born? A. I can’t answer that because she may only have one child and return to work and I never see her again. I am comparing patients who come in for pregnancy rather than a one family — pregnant one family. If you asked me my general impression I would say that because of the nature of our practice, which many of these people who come, I say many, a considerable number of them would come to us who have problems in becoming pregnant; and I find out all of these things like do you work, where do you work, and so forth because with these people I want to know these things. But for the average girl who drops in, or the person, I don’t like to use that word “drops in,” but who comes in and just going through the course of talking to her, it usually will come out in her conversation, but I don’t specifically say, “Do you work?” Q. I see. All right. That is all. THE COURT: Miss Weyand. MS. WEYAND: Nothing further. THE COURT: You may step down. Unless I hear an objection Dr. Forrest will be excused. 419 368 Thank you, sir. (The witness stood aside.) * * * * Feb. 23, 1973 CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL OF THE STATUS OF WOMEN Room 1336, Department of Labor Building Washington, D.C. 20210 Mrs. Catherine East has been executive secretary of the Citizens’ Advisory Council on the Status of Women since its establishment on November 1, 1963, by Executive Order 11126. The primary functions of the Council, whose mem- bers are appointed by the President, is to study issues re- lating to status of women and to recommend needed changes to the President, Federal agencies, and other groups. The Council has made recommendations on a variety of subjects, including most recently the Equal Rights Amend- ment, job-related maternity benefits, and Need For Studies of Sex Discrimination in Public Schools. Earlier recom- mendations to the Equal Employment Opportunity Com- mission on the interpretation of Title VII were adopted by the Commission and upheld by the courts. as the chief executive officer Mrs. East has been responsi- ble for providing staff assistance to the Council, including agenda and speakers for meetings and responsibility for preparation of staff papers and reports. For some studies she has arranged for part-time details of experts from vari- ous parts of the government. In other cases she has done the research and prepared the staff papers for the Council. She served as technical secretary for the Federal Employ- ment Committee of the President’s Commission on the Status of Women from March 1962 until November 1963, with similar responsibilities for Federal employment only. 420 369 In the Civil Service Commission where Mrs. East was em- ployed in public presonnel management for the preceding 23 years, she was engaged primarily in general staff work, researching various topics and preparing policy positions for the Commissioners. She drafted laws, regulations, ex- ecutive orders, bill reports, testimony, and instructions to agencies to carry out Commission policies. Among the wide variety of topics on which she worked were conflict of interest laws, employment of military personnel in the Federal service, and past and future relationship of the Civil Service Commission to the President. She played a major role in designing and implementing changes in the Federal personnel management system re- quired by World War II and the Korean war and post-war readjustments. She has been a speaker on legal, economic, and social status of women before such groups as the American Management Association Annual Personnel Conference, the Southern News- paper Publishers Association Foundation Seminar for South- ern journalists, Delaware Chamber of Commerce, the New York State Psychological Association Conference on Women in the Work Force, the National Conference of Administrative Women in Education, the National Conven- tion of the Intercollegiate Association of Women Students. She was an expert witness in the case of NOW »y. Pittsburgh Press and Cohen v. Chesterfield County School Board. She testified before the Select Committee of the House of Lords of the British Parliament on proposed legislation to prohibit sex discrimination in employment and education. During this trip she spoke on status of women in the U.S. at conferences at the University of London, University of South Wales, Glasgow City Council Chambers, British House of Commons, and appeared on several BBC television shows. 421 370 She testified on the Equal Rights Amendment before the Judiciary Committees of the-House and Senate of the Leg- islature of South Dakota and before the joint House-Senate Judiciary Committee of the Legislature of Connecticut. February 16, 1973 MATERIALS ON WHICH I WILL RELY Recommendation on Job-Related Maternity Benefits of Citizens’ Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Report of the Subcommittee on Maternity Benefits to the Interdepartmental Committee on the Status of Women, November 1969. Contract of the Department of Labor with Labor Local 12 signed December 18, 1970. Survey of Use of Leave for Maternity Purposes in Employ- ment Standards Administration, Department of Labor (if completed in time). “Childbirth and Child Rearing Leave: Job-Related Benefits,” New York Law Forum, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1971. Guidelines of States of Washington and Wisconsin. Current Population Reports, Bureau of the Census, “Birth Expectations and Fertility: June 1972,” Series P-20, No. 240, September 1972. Personnel Management Policies and Practices, Report Bulle- tin 25, June 6, 1972, Prentice-Hall. Unpublished Data from Survey of Use of Sick Leave by Federal Employees - 1961 leave year. February 22, 1973 422 423 371 * * * ° ° CATHERINE EAST was called as a witness by and on behalf of the plaintiffs and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified on her oath as follows: THE COURT: If you would move those for a moment so the marshal can put the table up. THE WITNESS: Oh! Thank you. . DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WEYAND: Q. I show you the vitae of curricula which has been filed. THE COURT: Miss Weyand, stand behind the lectern, please. The marshal will pass papers to the witness. THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Did you prepare that? Are there any changes necessary to bring it up to date? A. Well, yes, for this purpose I suppose so. I testified before several other state legislatures on the Equal Rights Amendment, if that is significant. THE COURT: Let me get the witness’ name. I am sorry. I didn’t get it. MS. WEYAND: I am sorry. THE WITNESS: Catherine East. THE COURT: Thank you, ma’am. MS. WEYAND: She has filed a biographical sketch with the Court, as you may recall, and I assume the same ques- tion would apply here as to whether there is need to quali- fy her further. THE COURT: In what field are you qualifying the wit- ness? MS. WEYAND: As an expert in the field of socio-eco- nomic effects of employment of women, the problems of women in the social and economic field. 424 372 THE COURT: Does anybody wish to examine the wit- ness on her qualifications? If not she is qualified. MS. WEYAND: Thank you. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. What is your present position? A. I am Execu- tive Secretary of the Citizens Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Q. What is the Citizens Advisory Council on the Status of Women? A. It is an advisory group of 20 members appointed by the President to advise the Federal Govern- ment and private groups, and anybody that wants to listen, on action that might be taken to improve the status of women. Q. Who are its members? A. 20 private citizens appointed by the President who serve without pay and serve without term of office. Q. How long have you held your present position? A. For 11 years. Q. What are the duties of your position? A. My duties are to help in preparing the agenda for the Coun- cil and arranging for speakers, in preparing staff papers, doing research on the topics they are concerned with, writ- ing the minutes, speaking as requested on the status of women to various groups and before public bodies. Q. I believe you stated that there were some legislative bodies before whom you have testified in addition to those listed in your biographical sketch. Would you state what those are? A. Yes. I testi- fied before the West Virginia Legislature, a House Commit- tee, House Judiciary Committee, and before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee on the Equal Rights Amend- ment. ae ee 425 426 373 Q. Have you testified before legislative bodies outside the United States? A. Yes. I testified before a Select Committee of the House of Lords on legislation to prohibit discrimination because of sex in employment and education in England. Q. When did this testimony take place? vember of 1972. Q. Did the Citizens Advisory Council on the Status of Women take any position with respect to disability bene- fits for periods of absence from work due to childbirth and complications of pregnancy? A. Yes. The Council was quite interested in this topic. The Council appointed by President Johnson had taken it up in 1968. And at that point they recommended the establishment of a Federal Temporary Disability Insurance System that would provide for compensation for loss of income for all employees who lost time because of tempo- rary disabilities, including pregnancy. When it came up again after President Nixon had appoint- ed the present Council members and the Council heard wit- nesses from an insurance company, from the Civil Service Commission from the Equal Employment Opportunity Com- mission, from the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, and the Labor Department. I did some research for them on practices in foreign countries and a little on what was done in this country. We found that there were a wide — I say we, I am speak- ing of the Council for whom I was doing the staff work— found a wide variety of practices. In the Federal Govern- ment and in the Railroad Retirement Board, we found that leave for childbirth was treated as a temporary disability and the employees used their sick leave, vacation leave, and leave without pay as necessary; and that they had re- employment rights. A. In No- 427 428 374 We found that some other employers required women to take leave without pay or to resign when they became pregnant. Some of them had to quit early in the pregnancy. They were not permitted to use sick leave or personal leave or vacation leave, whatever leave might be available, or didn’t have temporary disability insurance coverage. Most apparently had no reemployment rights except preference for vacancies. We were kind of surprised; it seemed some employers almost designed their practices to force women to quit work at the time they had children, and apprently some of the other practices went back to the times when preg- nancy was considered obscene and when all women were expected to stay home and take care of their children. It seemed to have been designed by upper middle-class men who, you know, were trying to get all women, or hoped or seemed to assume all women, could follow the practices of their wives. This appearance has since been confirmed by experiences I have had. I have spoken a great deal to businessmen, including the American Management Association Personnel Conference, and I always raised this topic when I did. And several of the employers, these are industrial rela- tion experts, they are not just anybody, Vice-Presidents for Industrial Relations or Personnel Directors, have asked me shouldn’t women be encouraged to stay home? Why should you have policies that would permit them to come back? I told them that was none of their business whether the wife stayed home to take care of the children or not. That was between the husband and the wife. We found that five states had temporary disability insur- ance laws. New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Cali- fornia, and Hawaii. 429 375 These laws provided income replacement for covered employees while they were temporarily disabled. At that time only New Jersey and Rhode Island cover- ed pregnancy, and both had limitations. Recently Hawaii has amended its law to cover periods of disability because of pregnancy. And I think to some extent because of the Council’s proposal and because of the EEOC Guidelines. And California’s exclusion of pregnancy from its law has recently been declared invalid under ther 14th Amendment. We found that four states, I guess, are or are going to have to include pregnancy. New York also has a bill before it to include pregnancy, and the women’s groups up there are working hard to get that exclusion repealed. We found that European countries and Great Britain generally have national social security systems that provide income maintenance during temporary disabilities and in- clude time off for childbirth and complications of pregnancy as a part of the system. We found in looking into why this wide variety of prac- tices and why pregnancy was excluded from benefits normally provided other disabilities, that it had been justified on the basis that pregnancy is distinguishable from all other disabilities because it is voluntary. I put that in quotes. Or it is a “normal physiological condition.” Since the Council membership is made up of 20 women, some of whom are of religious faiths that forbid effective birth control methods or abortion, the Council couldn’t believe that the voluntary bit had been advanced very seriously, but apparently it has been. The normal physiological condition justification was puz- zling. If pregnancy is normal is non-pregnancy abnormal? 430 431 376 One would think that a normal physiological condition would be one that could continue for a lifetime with com- fort. Constant pregnancy certainly would not be condu- cive to health or comfort. In any event, the Council was concerned with employ- ment and from the standpoint of employment absence for childbirth had all the characteristics of other temporary disability. THE COURT: Just a moment, please, ma’am. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Your Honor, I apologize for the interruption in the dialogue, I was waiting for the end of a sentence but I had difficulty in interrupting at that point in time. We note at counsel table that the witness appears to be reading a statement. This apparently is a prepared state- ment. It is not an answer to the question, and indeed — THE COURT: I will have to ask you now to be a little bit more specific as to your objection. MR. KAMMHOLZ: We object on the ground that the witness is not testifying but is reading a statement. THE COURT: Well, I think the objection is well taken. At the risk of being one of those middle-class chauvinis- tic males, it does appear to be argumentative. Suppose you address questions to the witness. You may refer to such notes as you may have. THE WITNESS: I am sorry. I made some notes. I didn’t want to forget anything. THE COURT: I have no doubt. that what you forget Miss Weyand will remind you of. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. What position did the Council take? A. The Council concluded that pregnancy is, that the time the childbirth, the period that a woman has to be off for childbirth is a temporary disability, that it had all the characteristics of it. a ao ae 432 377 That a woman is temporarily unable to work because of her physical condition. She is under the care of a doc- tor. She is likely to go to the hospital. She is in need of replacement of income, as great a need as for any other disability, and possibly greater since there is going to be a new addition to the family. So we concluded that it met all the characteristics of other temporary disabilities as far as employment is con- cerned. That is what we are dealing with is employment. And that it is one and that is the way it ought to be treated. We made that recommendations. We also recommended that women should not be given any greater advantages for pregnancy than for any other temporary disability. We felt this would be unfair to people, both women and men, who had other temporary disabilities. At the time that we took this up we were considering a proposal by the Civil Service or by a committee, not by the Commission, by a committee to recommend legislation that would have given women in the Federal Government a greater benefit, greater leave for pregnancy that for oth- er temporary disabilities. We disagreed with this and re- commended no greater benefits because we felt the es- sence of non-discrimination was to treat each person as an individual and that if you started having different treat- ment for pregnancy you would inevitably have some situ- ations where a woman who was off because of childbirth would be treated better than some other employee similar- ly situated insofar as length of service, and so on was con- cerned would have another disability and we thought they were identical and should be treated that way. Q. Did the Council issue a published statement repre- senting its position? A. Yes, we did. 433 A34 378 Q. What was that called and when was that issued? A. I will look it up. I can’t remember times. Q. I will show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 80 and ask you if that is a copy? A. Yes, Job-Related Maternity Benefits, November, 1970. Q. Thank you. Now, in connection with preparing this report, did you get some figures on the cost to industry of such a pro- gram? A. Yes, we did. This Council is made up of good Republican women, by and large, many of them in business, and they were not wanting to do anything that was out of the question. We had a Mr. Hunt from the Aetna Insurance Company. He was designated by top officials to come speak to us and to furnish us with data on costs of various things. He spoke to the Council before they took a position. And as a result of this statement I prepared— MR. KAMMHOLZ: Just a moment, Your Honor. I Object. Hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. As a result. THE WITNESS: As a reuslt I prepared a paper which we cleared with Mr. Hunt. I prepared a paper based on his testimony and then sent it to him at Aetna for clear- ing. MR. KAMMOLZ: Note the objection, Your Honor, based on hearsay. MS. WEYAND: We will provide the documentation. THE COURT: Please, you must address yourselves to the bench. The objection is well taken as to the last part of the answer. MS. WEYAND: I would like to show the witness Plain- tiffs’ Exhibit 81, please, and ask you if that represents the figures you have obtained from Aetna with respect to the cost? 435 379 THE WITNESS: Yes, it does. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Did you verify with Aetna the accuracy of the figures? THE COURT: I am sorry. Just a moment. You said Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 81? MS. WEYAND: Yes. THE COURT: It is described on your list of exhibits as Citizens Advisory Council on the Status of Women infor- mation from insurance industry related to coverage of childbirth. Is that what you are referring to, Miss Wey- land? THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. WEYAND: Yes. THE COURT: All right. I just wanted to be sure. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. And this was no document to which you referred when you said you had obtained information from the insurance industry included in your report, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Yes, ma’am. Q. I would like to have marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 121 a letter which I would like to show you. It is a letter which is from James Hunt to Mrs. Catherine East, dated June 30, 1971. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Your Honor, may I go back to the Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 81? Mr. Strauss, who had dealth at great length with counsel advises me that he had not re- ceived a copy of it, and I must confess that I have diffi- culty in identifying and relating this document to what has been handed the witness, which I have not seen. THE COURT: Didn’t counsel meet as required by the pre-trial order? MS. WEYAND: Yes, And I sent him over a list of all exhibits and he marked off the ones which he said were 436 437 380 missing from his set and I sent them over. I am very sorry if this didn’t appear in that group. THE COURT: I will give you an opportunity before cross-examining to look at it. Go ahead, Miss Weyand. Let’s see if we can’t move along now. MS. WEYAND: Yes. I am handling you the document marked for identifica- tion as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 121 and ask you if that is a letter you received from Mr. Hunt confirming the figures? THE COURT: Just a moment. THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. MR. KAMMHOLZ: May it please the Court - - THE COURT: All right, sir. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Plaintiffs’ exhibit list does not re- late to a 121. THE COURT: I know. MR. KAMMHOLZ: We object. MS. WEYAND: Mrs. East was -- did not provide this to me until today when she testified at another hearing we had a week ago, and at that time counsel, the Strom- berg-Carlson case, objected because she did not have con- firmation and she said I have a letter, and I will bring it down, and the first time I saw it was today, was that she got a letter from Mr. Hunt confirming the figures here. THE COURT: I am going to sustain the objection. But counsel for the defendent must recognize that you are going to get treated the same way in the event you come across any exhibits you would like to offer. The objection is sustained. It was not filed pursuant to the pre-trial order. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Your Honor, may I? THE COURT: Change your mind, did you? All right, sir. 438 381 MR. KAMMHOLZ: I would like the record to be clear that we object to 81 on the ground that it is hearsay. Perhaps the record already reflects. THE COURT: Let’s not go through those objections. They are all in the record. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Do you have any information as to the extent to which it has been the practice of pregnant females in the past to continue working right up to delivery if their doc- tors advise that this was approved by them? A. Well, we have had a great deal of difficulty in finding any em- ployers that have permitted this. Even the Federal Gov- ernment that has — that does permit the use of sick leave, recommends that agencies require women to be off four weeks before and eight weeks after childbirth. And of course the complaints that the EEOC gets are complaints from employers who do this. And I have tried, I have made a number of telephone calls, and I have tried to find employers who did allow women complete freedom and to get data on it. We found a few who do. I think — can I name them? Q. Yes, if you will, please. A. Okay. Xerox and IBM, Kline-French Drug Company in Phila- delphia, I believe that is the name. The Labor Department of the Federal Government. Now, I want to make it clear, I dont’ have the staff to make any kind of systematic surveys. These are things I have run across when | talk to people. The Cummings Company in Ohio and a Mount Zionist Hospital in Miami, Florida. I checked with all of them to see if they had any data and how long women did stay off when they were given freedom to choose, and they don’t. 439 440 382 It seems that the greater the extent to which they treat it like any other temporary disability the less access- ible the data is. I found that in the Labor Department if I want to make a survey of even on administration I would have to go through every leave record for sick leave, for leave of any kind, and try to pick out those that look like they might have been long enough for a baby, and then check and see if they had and how long they were off. And the same thing apparently was true in the other companies. I called and asked if they had data and they said they didn’t and said it would be difficult to compile. So I have been unable to get any data as to how long women will stay off. I suspect it will be some time be- fore we know. The women have been conditioned by these require- ments to think they, you know, should be off, that it is proper to be off that long, and in many cases I think there is some ridicule when they are not, even in profes- sional circumstances. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Your Honor, I object. This is speculative, hearsay, nonexpert testimony. THE COURT: I think it is a little out of the witness’ field of expertise. MR. KAMMHOLZ: I move to strike. THE COURT: The objection is well taken. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. When you mentioned these companies, are these companies that paid sickness and accident benefits on the same basis for a disability arising from pregnancy and childbirth? A. Yes. They tell me that they are com- pletely complying with the EEOC Guidelines, that they are treating it like any other disability and making pay- ments and letting women decide, with their doctors’ con- currence. 441 383 Q. All of these are companies that do have a payment of what we call sick pay for disabilities of all sorts includ- ing those arising from pregnancy? A. Yes. They either have sick leave or have temporary disability insurance cov- erage or both. Q. And they treat - THE COURT: Just a moment, please. Yes? MR. KAMMHOLZ: Your Honor, this line of interroga- tion has elicited hearsay answers. THE COURT: I think I can separate it. MR. KAMMHOLZ: I dislike being a constant objector, particularly since I am a male, but may I have a standing objection? THE COURT: Yes. Yes, of course. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: I will try to separate the hearsay as best I can. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Are there figures available from the Federal Govern- ment with respect to the extent to which women are off and return to work? A. Yes. Several years ago, I will give you the exact date in a minute, the Civil Service Commission made a survey of, I believe, five agencies that they considered representative on maternity leave. It is called the Report of the Sub- committee on Maternity Benefits to the Inter-departmental Committee on the Status of Women, 1969. And in there they reported on a survey they had made. Here it is. Five agencies. And one of the bits of data they collected was how long the women were Off. And they found it varid — I am sorry, it was six agen- cies. The shortest period of time, that average median, 442 443 384 the snortest median period was 11 weeks for the Labor Department. And that was about a year after the Labor Department started letting the women choose how long they would be off. Q. What year was that? A. That the Labor De- partment made this change? 1968. Q. These figures are ‘69 figures, is that correct? A. No, Iam sorry. This is 1967. This was published in ‘69, but the survey was not. 1967 figures and the Labor Department had made the change in 1966. Before that the Labor Department had required the women to be off six weeks before and eight weeks after childbirth. Labor — the median there was 11 weeks. Q. That is the Department of Labor? A. Depart- ment of Labor. State Department 11.5. Internal Rev- enue Service 12. Veterans Administration 14. Social Secur- ity 17. — all these agencies who had employees doing substan- ially the same kind of work. The only one that had any with heavy-duty workers was the Post Office Department. (page 21) And the heavy-duty workers only took off 16 weeks in the Post Office Department (page 27) although in Social Security, which is entirely clerical, it was 17. So my conclusion from that wouid be that the social climate in the agency had a great deal to do with how long the woman took off, and also the requirements she be off for a particular »eriod of time. Q. The study also sows when they came back, did they? A. This was a total of how many came back, you mean? Q. Yes. A. Yes, it showed that 21.3 percent ter- minated or resigned while they were on leave. At the time this study was completed eight per cent were still on leave. 70.7 had returned. 385 Three per cent had resigned after return. It is not clear any place in this study whether those resignations after return had anything to do with the preg- nancy or not. But in any event, the most conservative estimate would be that 70.7 percent had returned and eight per cent were still on leave. Also showed that although this was the general loss rate two agencies had a loss rate of 40 per cent. THE COURT: All right. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Your Honor, so the record is clear, my objection stands, I take it, on the ground of hearsay on the grounds of conclusionary statements by the witness, and on account of nonresponsiveness to the questions pro- pounded. THE COURT: Well, the proper foundation has not been laid. I think it would be, and I don’t want to run the risk, but much of the evidence you are getting in is a very peculiar way to do it, different from the rules of evidence, and you run the risk. MS. WEYAND: I thought when she was qualified as an expert it covered. I will go back. I understood you wanted to expedite matters. What participation did you have in investigating the facts in regard to how long women are off? THE WITNESS: This study. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. As part of your present position what did your in- vestigation reveal? A. Well, at this time that this study was done the Interdepartmental Committee on the Sta- tus of Women was also in existence and functioning. And this study was done at the request of the Interdepartmental 445 446 386 Committee on the Status of Women, of which I was also Executive Secretary. Q. So you were Executive Secretary of the agency that made this study? A. Of the committee that makes it, and I also planned — Q. Collecting the data? A. Not collecting the data. That was done by the agencies. The agencies under in- structions from tle Civil Service Commission collected the data. Q. But you assessed the — A. It was done at the request of the Interdepartmental Committee. Q. You have participated in requesting the various six Government agencies which you mentioned to provide the data? A. I participated in the committee. I didn’t do any of the work. It is not my job to do any of the work. Q. You supervised the people that did the work in con- nection with it as Executive Secretary, is that correct? A. I wouldn’t call it supervising. The Executive Secre- tary has a kind of an anomalous position. I was in touch and I contributed and I saw to it it was done because the Interdepartment Committee wanted it done, but an Execu- tive Secretary ordinarily doesn’t supervise the group that is Carrying out the instructions of a subcommittee that is carrying out instructions. Q. For the subcommittee you were the person who executed the task of collecting the material in terms of saying that it was collected and prepared, is that correct? A. If they hadn’t done it I would have followed up to see that they did. Q. You got it done, yes. And it was your job to get this? A. Yes. Q. This material collected? A. Yes. Q. You checked to see how accurate it was, did you? A. I had no way of checking it. 447 387 The agencies furnished this data. The Civil Service Com- mission asked each agency to keep a record for that pe- riod of time for each woman on maternity leave and turn- ed it in to the Civil Service Commission. They have a research staff, duly competent to collect data, analyze it and tabulate it. I worked with the Civil Service Commission 20 years. So I was knowledgeable as to their competence. And I fully relied on their research department to do this. I have no doubt the data is as accurate as the agencies furnished, and I have no reason to think the agencies would, you know, jimmy the data in any way. Q. This was the data that was furnished by the agen- cies? A. Yes, furnished by the agencies and tabulated and analyzed by the Civil Service Commission. Q. And you were Executive Secretary? A. Of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Status of Women and the Chairman was one member of that, of the Civil Service Commission. Q. And the figures you have read represent what was furnished you by the agencies? A. Official publications. Anybody can get it, a public document. It is the only thing I know of that has any information about how long women stay off. And of course here you have to keep in mind that these agencies, except for La- bor, I think require them to stay off six weeks before and eight weeks afterwards. Q. Do these agencies provide sick leave for the time that the woman is absent? A. The Federal Government’s sick leave system provides that it can be used for maternity. Q. That is for any period that the woman is off because of pregnancy or childbirth? A. Childbirth, that’s right. 448 449 388 Q. As part of your duties in connection with either the Interdepartmental Committee or the Citizens Advi- sory Committee, did you make any investigation as to whether there had been any Workmen’s Compensation claims attributed to pregnancy? A. I made some inquiries as to whether there was any reason to think that kceping women off until they delivered would increase the employ- ers’ risk because this is one of the things that we are con- cerned with. Q. What did you — how did you do about collecting this data? A. I didn’t really collect data. I called. I have no staff. I have one secretary. So a great deal of my information I have to get by calling people in the Government. I know my way around Government and I find out who to call, I call the chap in the Labor Depart- ment who is in charge of the Federal Employees Compen- sation Program. THE COURT: Just a moment. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Objection, Your Honor, as to hear- say. Move the answer be stricken. THE COURT: Objection sustained. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Do you know of any printed reports or studies which state whether or not there is a record of claims having been filed for Workmen’s Compensation? A. I couldn’t find any, couldn’t find any data at all, published data. Oh, the Prentice-Hall survey did have a reference to it, yes. I guess they asked employers if - Q. I show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 78 and ask you if that is the Prentice-Hall study to which you had reference? A. Yes. Q. Made the statement? A. This is it. Q. And you know of no other information? A. No. 450 389 Q. You made an effort to find other information? A. That’s right. This came up after we had done our study, after the Council had done its study. At the time I could find nothing at all, but this did come out later. Q. To what extent are mothers of small children em- ployed in industry today? THE COURT: You mean young children, don’t you? MS. WEYAND: Yes, young children. Correction. Thank you for the correction. THE WITNESS: It depends on the salary of the hus- band. The data I have here is by salary of the husband. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Would vou state what data you have reference to now? A. Yes, This is from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, summary, special Labor Force Report, October, 1972, Marital and Family Charact- eristics of Workers as of March, 1972. I think maybe I have — Q. I would like to have the witness look at Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 72 and ask if that is the data to which she has reference? A. Oh, no, maybe I better use this. I have a little later data that I have got here, but may- be since this is —- was in the record we better use this. I forgot that this has to be made available earlier. | try to get the latest thing I can before I come to testify. MS. WEYAND: I would like to offer the up-to-date data, if I might. I am very sorry. I make efforts when I prepare to get the data and the witness brings in some later data and it seems to me in the interest of having the record complete it should have the latest data. THE WITNESS: It doesn’t matter. THE COURT: Just a moment, please. 451 452 390 MR. KAMMHOLZ: Your Honor, Mr. Strauss advises me that we do not have the former data, so-called Plain- tiffs’ Exhibit 72, and obviously we don’t have the new document which I would like to see, if I may. MS. WEYAND: He gave me a list. THE COURT: Miss Weyand, I can’t understand why counsel hasn’t seen these exhibits. Now, maybe you haven’t seen some of theirs, but I can’t understand why they haven’t seen it. Can you explain it to me? MS. WEYAND: I made, pardon me, I gave him a list of my exhibits very well ahead and I sent him over all of the documents. He gave me a list of the ones he didn’t have and I sent those to him Friday or Saturday. And this was not on the list he gave me. I am very sorry if he didn’t have it. I made an effort. We have plenty of copies and he certainly would have had it if | had had any idea he didn’t have it. | regret very much that he seems not to have had it. THE COURT: All right. Anything else, gentlemen? MR. KAMMHOLZ: May Mr. Strauss respond to this? He is the one, who I noted earlier, that dealt with Miss Weyand in connection with all of the exhibits. MR. STRAUSS: Your Honor, Miss Weyand is correct that I did give her a list of the documents that I was missing. This was last Saturday morning or Saturday afternoon. Miss Weyand did send me some documents. I am sorry, sir, she did not send me all the documents that I re- quested. Now, it may be that I made an error and not requested some, but we are missing quite a number of the documents which appear on her list. 453 391 You might inquire why I didn’t point this out when | filed our proposed objections. THE COURT: That was going to be the next inquiry. M™. STRAUSS: The reason was that on the surface, sir, I thought they were so objectionable as hearsay and irrelevant that I didn’t point this out. THE COURT: Do you have a list now of the proposed exhibits that you have not had an opportunity to see? MR. STRAUSS: I can compile it in two or three min- utes, sir. THE COURT: Aill right. Suppose you do that. Suppose you do that as soon as we recess tonight. All counsel will, please, remain and use the conference room so that you may exchange exhibits, something which should have been done some time ago. And I will have to keep the witness for cross-examina- tion, gentlemen, until you have had an opportunity to see this. If it is tomorrow it is tomorrow. Go ahead and let’s see if we can’t move along. Use the latest information you have. MS. WEYAND: Thank you. Will you give your latest information, please, Mrs. East? THE COURT: And the sources, please, ma’am. THE WITNESS: All right. The source is the Special Labor Force Report No. 153 of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 1972. And the participation rate of mothers with children is shown by income of the husband (Table J). When the income of the husband is under 3,000 a year, 31 — 34.1 per cent of the mothers with children under six are in the labor force. 454 455 392 Of the mothers with children six to 17, 51 per cent are in the labor force. If the income of the husband is $3,000 to $4,999 39 percent of the mothers with children under six are in the labor force. 53 percent of those with children six to 17. If the husband’s income is 5,000 to 6,999 37.7 per cent of the mothers with children under six are in the labor force and 57.3 per cent of those with children six to. 17. With income of the husband between 7,000 and 9,999 32.8 per cent of the women with children under six are in the labor force. If you are not looking at it maybe I ought to point out that the highest participation rate for mothers with children under six is in the 3,000 to 4,999. 39 percent there. Then it starts going down. When you get to the 7,000 to 9,999, the one I was just quoting, 32.8 per cent are in the labor force. 56.3 of those with children six to 17. The 10,000 and over, 22.4 per cent of the mothers with children under six are in the labor force. That is the lowest percentage of any group. 45.1 of those with chil- dren six to 17. And I think the general trend here is that the higher the income of the husband the less apt a woman is to work with children under six. She is a little more likely to work if the children are six to 17. But here again it goes down with the income of the husband. The percentage of women working goes down as the income of the husband goes up. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Has there been a change or trend in recent years with respect to the employment of women with young children; A. Yes, It has been going up. Q. Do you have figures on that? A. Yes. 456 393 In March, 1960, 18.6 per cent of women with children under six years of age were in the labor force. In March, 1972, it was 30.1 per cent. With children under three in March, 1960, it was 15.3 percent. In March, 1972, it was 26.9 percent. For all wives in 1965 it was 34.7 per cent without regard to the age of their children and 41.5 in 1972. So here again, the younger the children the less apt she is to work, but nevertheless the figure is going up. It has gone from 15.3 to 26.9 for the women with children under three. The participation of younger women who are in the prime childbearing years has also gone up substantially. In 1960 28.2 per cent of all wives under 35 were in the labor force. Today it is 43.4 per cent. Of those 35 or over it was 31.7 percent in 1960 and 40.4 per cent in 1972. Now, these data came from the Monthly Labor Review for April, 1973, pages 33 and 34, “Labor Force Activity of Married Women.” Q. Do you have any reason for believing that these figures do not represent what women would do if employ- ers would assure women the right to return to their jobs and if pressures from employers were not applied to dis- couraging returning to work? MR. KAMMHOLZ: Just a moment. If the Court please, I object. The question assumes matters not of record, at least in two instances. THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead and answer it if you can, ma’am. THE WITNESS: Well, I think one of the reasons it has been going up is because the cultural pressures are 457 458 394 decreasing, and employers’ pressures, I suppose, are decreas- ing too as the cultural pressures do and as laws give women some leverage for enforcing rights. Women in the labor force have smaller families too. That is in this same article. Very interesting. Q. The one in the Monthly Labor Review that you re- ferred to? A. Yes. Q. Do you have the figures on that handy there? A. Yes. For women not in the labor force the age 15 to 44. THE COURT: Let me get it straight. What are you reading from, ma’am?I really haven’t got it. This official Government document? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I will show you. I have taken these data down, but it is from the Bureau of the Census publication, Series P-20, No. 240, “Birth Ex- pectations and Fertility”, June 1972. THE COURT: All right. I took these figures out because I didn’t want to have to go from page to page there. Women 15 to 44 who were not in the labor force had 1.88 children per woman. For those in the tabor force it was 1.25. For women 40 to 44, which would be woman who have completed childbearing years, pretty largely, it was 3.34 for those not in the labor force and 2.74 for those in the labor force. This had been a consistent pattern over the years for labor force participation. Women in the labor force have fewer children than those not in. There have been no studies of women that have careers that I can find. This is just the women in the labor force at any given moment. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. To what extent had women been permitted to 459 460 395 return to employment as soon after childbirth as their phy- sicians have approved as far as you have studied industry in the past and investigated the matter? A. We could find very few employees — we could find very few employ- ers that had permitted women to come back when they wanted to. Q. Could you tell us of the various federal laws under which disability benefits are paid and state the extent to which, if at all, payments are made for periods of disabil- ity due to childbirth or complications of pregnancy? A. Well, the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Law is a federal law and it provides payment for just like any other disability, and Federal Civil Service Law does. The Social Security Disability Law provides for payments, that is for long-term disability, for more or less permanent disability. And it provides for payment where the women has a condition that resulted from pregnancy, a long-term disability that could come from, I guess, the kind of thing the doctor was talking about this morning, some of the more major disabilities, major complications. Q. Have you made a study of what, if any, provisions for income maintenance is made in whole or in part in other countries with respect to absence from childbirth or complications of pregnancy? A. Well, I don’t recall the study. THE COURT: I am sorry. Would you mind? THE WITNESS: Sorry I used in determining for the Council what was done in foreign countries this public Social Security program. MR. KAMMHOLZ: May I interpose an objection, Your Honor? We object on the ground that this is irrelevant to the issues in this case. 461 396 THE COURT: Go ahead. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. You are referring to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 85, are you, is that correct? A. I don’t know what the number is. This one. Yes. Social Security Programs Throughout the World, 1971. It is published by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare every year or every two years, and it has a breakdown of the various kind of social security programs in all the countries. And most of the European countries have a social se- curity system that includes compensation for loss of in- come while people are temporarily disabled, while employ- ees are off from work, and it includes the time a woman has to be off for pregnancy. Q. Do you know if these financing and administration of these provisins for disability from childbirth and preg- nancy are financed and administered as part of the social security system for other disabilities? A. In other countries it is largely a part of the federal, or the national system of social security. And that is, of course, what the Johnson Council recommended, a federal temporary disability insurance system. Q. Covering all disabilities? A. Covering all disabili- ties. Q. In private industry, and that included in that not treated differently would be disabilities from childbirth? A. That is the way they thought that maternity leave should be handied. They came to this conclusion from a study of maternity leave. Q. Now, did the Citizens Council, the report which you have mentioned, differ from that? take a position on that. 462 A. The Council didn’t 463 397 What they recommended was within the present frame- work of our system, the way it is developed here, that whatever requirements, whatever provisions an employer had for other temporary disabilities should be applied to we no position that they should change the SsO- cial security system in this country by having a national system? A. That was one of the options that was put up in the staff paper. When I do a staff paper I try to give them all the options and to go into what other groups have done in the past, and they did not adopt this option. Q. They felt the social security system that developed here in private industry is one that should be applied equally as employers set up their own system? A. That is what the recommendation indicates. Q. Yes. Could you tell me what the experience has been in the states that have, New Jersey I believe for instance, has covered in its disability system, disabilities arising from pregnancy and childbirth? Are you acquainted with what the experience has been? A. Yes. The New Jersey system provides for payments for four weeks before and four weeks after childbirth. And I have some data for New Jersey that they publish in their annual report which indicates that less than eight weeks is taken two groups. a ” ao feniee systems for paying temporary disability insurance, not two systems but two funds from which it ; nr is for non-pregnant cases as well as pregnant? A. Generally the system provides that if a person Is on the job or has been laid off less than three or four & weeks he is paid out of one fund. His temporary disability 398 insurance payments come out of one fund. If he has been laid off more than four weeks and he is entitled — he is otherwise eligible, his temporary disability insurance pay- ments come out of what they call unemployment fund And they break down the pregnancy claims in both funds. And in the fund where the women have not been off more than a couple of weeks it is a little less. . Q. Than in the unemployment fund? A. Yes. But in both cases it is less than eight weeks. And they state in their annual report that the reason most of their preg- nancy claims come out of the unemployment fund, is that employers require women to take off before the four weeks before the four-week period, so they pay most of their claims out of that fund. That information appears in the Law Review article, and I don’t know which exhibit that is. Q. Let m i i i m.. € show you 82 and ask if that is the informa- A. The Law Review article that that i i pears . t info In, yes, also appears in this. pra ‘ 7 Is a the one you are referring to, or another? . No. e Law Review articl ‘ ) eg e, Mrs. Koontz’s Law Re- Q. That is 83-A, then? put in there. Q. I show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibi ' it 83-A and if i appears in there? A. Yes. pad Childbirth and Childrearin g Leave: J by Elizabeth Duncan Koontz. ee MR. KAMMHOLZ: Move to strike, Your Honor, on the ground that that is hearsay twice removed. MS. WEYAND: I was going into — I am sorry. I wanted to lay a foundation. A. That information was 465 466 399 THE COURT: You best lay your foundation first. It is not your fault, but I have been misled to some extent by just looking at the list of exhibits. Go ahead and see what you can do with it. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. With respect to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 83-A, did you participate in preparing this Law Review article? A. Yes. I did all the research and did the first draft. Q. And every bit of date in there? A. Every bit of data I collected. Q. And you drafted it? A. Yes. Q. Drafted the article? A. Yes, I did. Q. You did this as part of your position with the — A. Yes. Q. — Federal Government? A. Yes. This is cus tomary in the Federal Government. I have spent many years of my life drafting publications for other people’s names. Q. And with respect to the New Jersey data, where did you get the New Jersey data you have told us about? A. From the annual reports of the New Jersey State, whatever the name of that state organization is, that ad- ministers the temporary disability insurance system. I called up there and they sent me all their annual re- ports. And what I didn’t understand I called up and got explained to me. Q. And then you listed in here — A. Yes. Q. -— in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 83, the sources you used — A. Oh, yes. Q. — for the date? A. All footnoted. Shows the sources from which it came. Q. Okay. A. A great deal of the other information that I have given is also in here. Q. With the source data — A. Yes. 467 468 400 Q. — which you obtained by collecting the data? A. Yes. That’s right. Q. Do you have data on the differences in the absentee rate in private industry between males and females? A. Yes. I think I do. But I don’t know where it is here. The absenteeism in labor turnover publication of the Women’s Bureau includes that data. I think I see it there. Q. This is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 66 to which you make reference, is that correct? A. Yes. That’s right. Facts about women absenteeism and Labor turnover. Q. Do you have other studies besides this one on ab- senteeism? A. I don’t think I do. Q. That is the only one in which you are acquainted? A. Yes. The Public Health Service does an annual survey show- ing how much time men and women lose from work be- cause of illness. And in this one it is for the calendar year '67, shows an average of 5.6 days lost by women and 5.3 days lost by men. This is based on a survey of house- holds by the Public Health Service. They do it regularly. Q. All right. I believe that is all the questions I have. THE COURT: All right. Can you cross-examine at this time, sir? If it puts you at a disadvantage, not having seen these papers, I will let you withhold it. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Your Honor, may I? THE COURT: You want a brief recess? MR. KAMMHOLZ: I was going to suggest that I begin part of my cross-examination. It would certainly shorten it for a later time. 469 401 THE COURT: All right. Whatever your pleasure is. I think maybe I haven’t given any thought to the court reporter. We have kept him at it. Would you help the witness down, please? (The witness stood aside.) THE COURT: The Court will stand in a brief recess. (A recess was taken at 2:30 to reconvene at 2:45.) (The witness resumed the stand.) ! . THE COURT: All right, Mr. Marshal, help the witness. All right, sir. | MR. KAMMHOLZ: Your Honor, during the recess we ed in colloquy with plaintiffs’ counsel. we now rent copy of Plaintiffs’ 121. It is a short exhibit, a little over a page. We have had an opportunity to examine it, and obvious- ly it would not be particularly appropriate to stand on our objection that we did not have a opportunity to examine it. The exhibit was not produced in time. | I should like therefore, to withdraw that objection, but to object to the exhibit on the ground of hearsay. THE COURT: May I see it? I will take that under advisement. The objection on its face is well taken, as are many of your objections, frankly, now that I have gone into it a little more. I will let you go ahead with your examina- tion, and then I have some questions to ask the witness, after which I will let you come back to it. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Very well. Thank you, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KAMMHOLZ: Q. Mrs. East, you testified that you have appeared be- fore several legislative committees in connection with the Equal Rights Amendment? A. Yes, sir. 470 471 402 Q. Were you active in promoting adopti . ption of the Equal Rights Amendment? A. Well, an Executive Aor is not usually active, the Council was. Our Citizens Ad- visory Council at its meeting in 1970 endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment. And I had found a staff person from the Federal Government to prepare a legal memo, and it was prepared. I am personally convinced it is a desirable i . . -_ desirable thing for women. wh iscand Q. Are you familiar, Mrs. East, with the majority re- port of the Committee on the Judiciary — indeed. -- Q. — dated March 14, 1972? A. Yes, sir. I refer to it frequently. 472 Q. Indeed, you have provided copies at various women’s group meetings — A. Oh, yes. Q. — have you not? A. It is i — hi ' } : an important part of the legislative history on the Equal Rights previ and ss Q. Do you embrace the views expressed in that minori- — in that majority report? A. In ? ; neral. , say I endorse all of them. “ near” Q But when you go before legislative bodies and com- mittees do you draw this distinction? A. Well, if I were testifying about anything that I disagreed with I would certainly say so, but in my testimony that I have made before legislative bodies I have been testifying as to things with which I had no reservation whatever. Q. But it is your testimony here that you do have re- servation about some of the language of th jori e port? A. Slightly. ae, You are getting to the maternity leave. Q. No. You have answered my question. Yes, I do on that point. Q. Any other points? A. A. Okay. I don’t know. 403 I haven’t read it that carefully recently. I know that I always have had a problem with this with that report, although I think in general it is a very fine legal basis for interpreting the Equal Rights Amendment. Q. Have you in any of your testimony before a state legislative body or before any other agency drawn a dis tinction as between maternity provisions of the majority report and other provisions? A. No. I have never testi- fied on maternity leave. Q. Have you testified on ERA? A. Yes, I mean when I was testifying on ERA I never discussed maternity leave. Q. Now, going back to your testimony concerning the Citizens Advisory Committee, did I understand you cor- rectly to say that in 1969 or 70 recommendations were made for temporary disability insurance coverage to include maternity? A. In 1968, I believe it was. Q. °68? A. It was the Johnson Council, the members appointed by President Johnson, who made that recom- mendation. Q. Were you the Executive Secretary — sir A. Yes, Q. Of the group at the time? A. Yes, sir, I was. Q. Was this proposal one to amend the Federal Social Security System? A. 1 don’t think they wanted to amend the Social Security Act. I think they wanted a separate law that would probably be tied in to the Unem- ployment Insurance Acr rather than the Social Security Act. That is my recollection. I haven’t read that report in some time. ©. The scheme of the statute was to provide such cover- age across the land with exceptions only as to minimal num- ber of employees in certain establishments? 473 474 404 A. Yes, with everyone. I think that group, my recollec- tion is, that that particular task force wanted to cover just about all employees. Q. No matter what size the establishment? A. Well, I am not sure, sir, what size, whether they were getting into that or not. I don’t think they got into that in that much detail because the primary — their primary concern, you see, was maternity leave. And they felt this was the best way to handle maternity leave was to have a general federal — Q. To have the law amended? A. A general federal system of temporary disability insurance that covered every- one. Q. You made reference to European systems providing payments for disabilities including maternity. Is it not a fact that each of those systems is in the nature of a social security system? A. Yes, it is. Q. And is it not a fact also that in virtually each of those systems the benefits payable for maternity leave differ from benefits payable for disability sickness or illness? A. No. My recollection was they are substantially the same. Q. Well, are they the same or substantially the same? A. Well, there are different countries involved, and I don’t think any two are identical. We would have to look at a specific country before I could say, make a specific answer. Q. But do you know as you are testifying now whether as a general proposition, and I will rephrase the question, maternity benefits are for the same duration as benefits for sickness and illness? If you don’t know you may say so. A. No. I don’t recall. I reviewed this at the time I did the staff work in 1970, reviewed these foreign coutnries, and I found that they were considered under a general temporary, you know, a general system — 475 476 405 Q. Yes. A. — rather than private employers han- “7 ye now to the agencies of the Federal Govern- ment here. I believe you testified that generally speaking these agencies do permit maternity leave? A. Well, they are required by law to permit employees to use a. and annual leave for purposes of — when they are disable regnancy or childbirth. — pi a ran familiar with the practices of the various agencies? A. Not with each individual agency. I am familiar with the Civil Service Law. ; I worked for the Civil Service Commission for 25 years and I have a general familiarity with the Civil Service Law that governs all agencies. They have some latitude under the law for adopting their own practices. They don’t have any latitude about whether they allow — oe they pay or whether they allow sick leave to be used for i se. “— of materials on all subjects that are directly related to the women’s movement of things I have collected, even though the Council may not be studying it at the moment or might not be any idea they would in the future. . And so I have materials on a great many topics, and | bibliographies and this kind of thing that I use in planning ; yey you see in the Federal Government there is an expert on almost anything. And by working with the Civil Service Commission as long as I did I get a pretty good idea what each federal agency does. I was dealing with them all the time. I have a pretty good idea of where all the experts are hidden, where to call to get information and who is, you know, who is a good source. Q. And it is this kind of contact work with the — that describes the nature of your a for the Council? staff rs frequently. ‘ = tha ae ee ‘ae you get from these places? A. Yes, and from my personal knowledge. | have been in the Federal Government almost 35 years, 25 or it in 483 484 410 the Civil Service Commission where I was doing entirely staff work relating to legislation and to the Federal Person- nel System. MR. KAMMHOLZ: I have no further questions, Your Honor, but I should like at this time to move to strike all of the testimony of the witness on the ground that her answers On cross-examination show that her testimony is hearsay. THE COURT: Well, I don’t think that is exactly what she said. What do you do with this information that you gather? Do you keep it as part of the records of the Council or — THE WITNESS: Well, I keep the material, but then when we start studying a subject like maternity leave I prepare a paper based on it. The papers that have been published by the Council on maternity leave I prepare. THE COURT: Part of the ordinary course of business of the Council? THE WITNESS: Yes, all their publications. And I could bring in a whole stack of them. | have prepared all their publications except — in the last four years, except two that I can remember were prepared by other people. THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. I guess you don’t get to be an expert except from ex- perience and reading. I can separate that. Objection is overruled. MR. KAMMHOLZ: May I have a moment, Your Honor? One more question? THE COURT: Yes. Yes. BY MR. KAMMHOLZ: Q. Mrs. East, you are aware, are you not, that the ma- jority report of the Committee on Equal Rights sets out that the ERA does not require that women must be treat- ed in all respects the same as men? A. That’s right. 485 486 411 Q. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? A. I disagree with it insofar as it relates to maternity. Q. You have answered my question. The statement goes on, “Equality does not mean same- ness.” Do you agree or disagree with that statement of the majority report? A. I agree with that. It is an abstract statement with little meaning by itself. Q. Now, the majority report from the Committee on the Judiciary goes on, “As a result, the original resolution would not prohibit reasonable classifications based on | characteristics that are unique to one’s sex.” Do you again disageee with the majority report of the Senate Judiciary Committee? A. I would — Q. You may answer that yes or no, please. I can’t answer it yes or no. | THE COURT: She is entitled to give an explanation. See if you can’t answer yes or no first and then give ion as you want. cen aueeans: Well, I can answer and then give you the explanation, but I don’t want to answer it without. . MHOLZ: ee may answer and then go to your explana- tion. A. I would agree with it, but I would have to alifications on various topics. " row = maternity leave I would — as it relates to employment. Conceptually and in the abstract I can con- ceive that there might be laws that would deal with preg- . nancy that would be in accord with the Equal Rights Amend- ment. I don’t know of any right now. Conceptually | think there is a possibility. But when you are talking about employment and relationship of the time a woman | , has to be off for childbirth, I think any law that dealt wit that especially, you know, would be not only in omar : with the Equal Rights Amendment, but also with the 14t | Amendment and Title VII, of course. A. Well, 487 412 Q. Are you a lawyer? A. No sir. I am not. I am familiar with this area of the law, though. Q. Do you believe there are characteristics unique to a sex? A. Yes, but I don’t think they make much differ- ence about legal rights. Q. Well, I believe Senator Javits in the Senate debate agreed with you that there are differences, and he added, “Vive la difference.” A. Well, male chauvinists say that. We know where a man is when that is the way he talks. Q. Well, if the female of the species adheres to the point of view which I gather you take to the contrary, too long, there won’t be any of us around to worry or argue? A. You are misrepresenting my point of view. I have two children and I am very happy with them, and I had sick leave when I had them. Q. You were Mrs. East at the time? A. East, yes, sir. Q. But you are Ms. East now? A. It doesn’t matter. Whatever is comfortable for you is comfortable for me. Q. In summary, then, it is your testimony here that you disagree with the majority of the Senate Judiciary? A. I don’t disagree. I would have qualified it if I were writing that report. I would have liked to have had may- be a paragraph or two there instead of having that one little short sentence. Q. You have answered my question. You disagree? A. Well — THE COURT: You can give such explanation as you deem appropriate. THE WITNESS: All right. I don’t think that — I don’t consider that a serious prob- lem in the Senate Judiciary Committee report because I think any judge who had a case before him that involved this would look at the total legislative history and total 488 I am Mrs. 489 413 purpose and the total situation in which, you know, it was framed. And I don’t have any doubts that most judges would hold that any laws that purported to treat pregnancy different for purposes of employment and maternity leave was, you know, was not in accord with the Equal Rights Amendment. So I con’t feel that is a serious problem with it, with the Judiciary Committee report. BY MR. KAMMHOLZ: Q. Now, you were — may I move that this be stricken from the record, the testimony of the witness which would substitute her judgment for that of the Court, the last two sentences of the last answer? THE COURT: Do you really think it could happen? THE WITNESS: Are you speaking to me? THE COURT: No. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Subject to the earlier colloquy about — THE COURT: Well, I don’t mean to be facetious, but I don t think your suggestion ought to be dignified by a ruling from the Court. MR. KAMMHOLZ: accede to it. THE COURT: All right. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Now, in all candor, I don’t at the moment — I am not sure that w will have additional in- terrogation. THE COURT: Well, we will have Mrs. East available to you with reasonable notice. I would not like to con- I understand the Court’s ruling. | fine her — MR. KAMMHOLZ: Very well. Thank you. THE COURT: — to the city. Is there any further examination? MS. WEYAND: No further examination. 490 414 THE COURT: All right. Will you be available, Mrs. East? Hed you planned — THE WITNESS: Sir, I could — I live in Arlington. It takes me about two hours to get here. So I am not plan- ning to be out of town. THE COURT: Would you leave with counsel for the Plaintiff a number we can contact you at? Subject to that you may be excused. (The witness stood aside.) THE COURT: Call your next witness, please. MS. WEYAND: Mrs. Thomas, please. ERMA THOMAS was called as a witness by and on be- half of the plaintiffs and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified on her oath as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WEYAND: Q. What is your name? A. Mrs. Erma Faye Thomas. Q. Where do you live? A. Tyler, Texas. THE COURT: I am sorry. I will have to ask you to keep your voice up, please, so I can hear. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. By whom are you employed? tric. MR. BATTLE: Excuse me. I don’t mean to interrupt, but did you get an answer to the preceding question? If so, I would like for it to be read. THE COURT: As to where she lived? MR. BATTLE: Yes, sir. I didn’t hear the answer. THE COURT: Tell counsel where you live. THE WITNESS: Tyler, Texas. THE COURT: I am sorry. I thought I understood the first time, I am positive I didn’t the second time. Say it again. A. General Elec- ee ee — —— 491 492 415 THE WITNESS: Tyler, Texas. THE COURT: Tyler, Texas. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. By whom are you employed? tric. Q. When did you start to work for the General Elec- tric Company? A. May 10, 1971. Q. What plant did you start to work in? Tyler plant. Q. What classification of a job did you hold? A. Tube fabrication. Q. Are you still on the tube fabrication job? A. I am. Q. You have worked continually with that job through- out your employment, is that correct? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. Did you get pregnant during your employment with General Electric? A. Yes, I did. Q. When did you get pregnant? A. It was the latter part of July or the earlier part of August. Q. Of what year? A. Of ’71. Q. Did you notify General Electric that you were preg- nant? A. I notified them after I had been to the doctor and the doctor told me I was six weeks, and then I took this notice to the nurse of the plant. Q. Do you know the name of the nurse to whom you took it? A. I know her first name is Sherry. I don’t remember her last name. Q. How long did you continue to work without any- body asking you to stop work? A. Well, I worked up until the day before the baby was born. Q. All right. . I would like to have the marshal show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 48. A. General Elec- A. The 493 494 416 I ask you if you received a copy of that notice? A. Yes, I did. Q. How was that notice delivered to you? supervisor gave it to me. Q. Who was your supervisor? A. Harry Poulan. Q. And did he say anything to you when he gave it to you? A. He read through it and he told me that this date would be the last day that I would be — would have to report to work. Q. And what date was that he told you would be the last day you would have to work? THE COURT: Is it on there, Mrs. Thomas? You may look at that. THE WITNESS: No, it is not on here. I don’t remem- ber the date. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Will you read that? It is a very poor copy, I must say. THE COURT: You may approach the witness and point out the date you are referring to, if it is on there. THE WITNESS: You want me to read it? MS. WEYAND: Yes. THE WITNESS: Just that? “Dr. Orten advised that she may continue her regular duties until the 2/18/72.” BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Had your doctor advised you that you had to stop work February 18, 1972? A. No, ma’am. Q. What had your doctor told you, if anything? A. He told me that I could work as long as I could if it don’t bother me, if I had no trouble or nothing. Q. When you got this notice what did you do? A. Well, I looked at my supervisor and I told him I hadn’t seen that before and I was wondering if it was, you know, really true or not. A. My — ee, re ~~ ee ee ee ee eee — -_— —— 495 417 Q. What did he say? A. He told me that that would be my last day. And he fooled around and walked off. Q. Did you do anything else about it? A. Well, no. Q. Did you actually stop work on 2/18? A. Well, before that date we got this other letter from the com- pany saying that I could work on up until my doctor said I could. Q. Do you know how you got that letter? A. Well — Q. Did you go to the union? A. It wasn’t in a letter. | Q. Did you go to the union about the fact that you didn’t want to stop work? A. Yes. I went to the union. Q. Yes. And then you got a letter that you didn’t have to stop work, is that right? A. I didn’t get a letter. My supervisor told me. Q. Your supervisor told you? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. Now, I would like you to look at Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 50. Could you tell me who Mr. Pettey is? President of our union. Q. President of your union? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. And you are the Erma F. Thomas he is talking about in there, are you? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. And he wrote that, you went to see him before that or talked to the union about the fact that you didn’t want to stop work, is that right? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. And then after that letter was written the foreman came and told you you could work? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. How long did you work?’ A. Well, I worked up until the day before the baby was born. I worked a full shift that day and had the baby the next. A. He is the 496 497 418 Q. What shift do you work? Q. And what day of the week was that last day you worked before your baby was born? A. It was Friday. Q. It was a Friday. What time did you go to the hospital? A. I don’t know exactly. It was around 10:00, I guess. Q. About 10 o’clock that night you went to the hos- pital? A. Yes. Q. Yes. Now, how long did you stay in the hospital? A. Three days. Q. And when did you try to go back to work first after the baby was born? A. It was four weeks after. Q. And did you talk to your doctor about whether it was all right to go back? A. Yes, ma’am. I talked to him. Q. What did he say? A. He told me that I could go back if I wanted to, if I felt like it. Q. Did he give you a certificate you should show the company? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. And the certificate said that you were cleared by him to go back to work? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. And what was your doctor’s name? Q. And did you take that certificate to the company? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. Did they let you go back to work? A. No. The nurse told me that she would have to check with somebody, and she called and she then came back and told me I would have to wait until I had my six-weeks check- up before I could come back to work. Q. Did you wait until you had your six-weeks checkup? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. Then you went back to work? Q. All right. That is all the questions I have. A. Yes, ma’am. A. From 7:00 to 3:30. A. Dr. Orten. ee ee — 498 499 419 THE COURT: All right. Is there any cross-examination, gentlemen? MR. KAMMHOLZ: May we have a moment, Your Honor? MS. WEYAND: Maybe I should show her the claim she filed. I am sorry. Would the marshal show the exhibit, the witness Exhibit WW to the stipulation, please? THE COURT: Well, it is not necessary. Is it just to identify it? MS. WEYAND: Yes. I have a copy here if she would like to look at it. THE COURT: All right. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Is this the form of claim you filled out? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. Is that your signature on the first page? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. And on the next page, did you take this to the doctor, is that his signature? A. Yes, ma’am. | Q. And when you got this from the doctor did you file it with the company? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. And I want you to look at Plaintiffs’ Exhibit — well, you got a letter from the company denying your claim, did you? A. Yes. Q. And you have never been paid? A: No, ma’am. Q. But the company did pay your doctor and hospital bill when you had the baby? A. Yes, ma’am. MS. WEYAND: That is all the questions I have. THE COURT: Gentlemen, any cross-examination? Let counsel see that, please. MR. KAMMHOLZ: May I see this? THE COURT: PX-WW to the stipulation, gentlemen. Any cross-examination? 500 501 420 MR. KAMMHOLZ: We have no questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Unless I hear an objection Mrs. Thomas will be excused. Thank you. Call your next witness, please. MS. WEYAND: Mrs. Furch, please. EMMA FURCH was called as a witness by and on be- half of the plaintiffs and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified on her oath as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Please state your name. Q. Where do you live? Q. By whom are you employed? Electric Company. Q. When did you start work for the General Electric Company? A. October 13, 1966. Q. What is your present job with the General Electric Company? A. Set up. Q. Set up? A. Yes. Q. What was your job when you were first employed? A. Tube cutting-bending. Q. You have held various different jobs, have you, dur- ing the time? A. Yes. Q. How many children do you have? A. One. Q. How old is this child? A. She is 15. Q. While you were employed by General Electric did you become pregnant in 1970 or °71-’72? A. Yes. Q. When did you become pregnant? A. °72, I be- lieve it was. Q. In ’72. Do you know what your expected delivery date was? A. July 6th. A. Emma May Furch. A. Tyler, Texas. A. The General ES 502 503 421 Q. How long did you continue to work during your pregnancy? A. I worked up until about the fifth — about the fifth month. THE COURT: I am sorry. Did you say February? THE WITNESS: The fifth month. THE COURT: To the fifth? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. What happened in the fifth month that you ceased work? A. I started threatening a miscarriage and I had to stop. Q. Did your doctor hospitalize you? A. At first he didn’t. I left work. I worked that Wednesday. Q. What date? Do you remember the date that you worked? A. It was possibly the 12th because I was hospitalized on the 14th. Q. Of August? A. Which was a Friday, April. Q. Of April? A. Yes. Q. 12th of April? A. Yes. Q. You were hospit: .zed? A. hospitalized. Q. You worked the 12th and went to the hospital the 14th? A. Yes. Q. How long did you stay in the hospital? A. Through the 17th. I was first hospitalized on the seventh. Q. The seventh? A. Yes. Q. And what day did you work up to before April 7? A. The fifth. Q. You worked until April 5 and went in the hospital on April 7? A. Yes. Q. Did you deliver while you were in the hospital? A. No. I stayed there until the 11th and the doctor thought maybe I could keep the baby, so he sent me home on complete bedrest. 14th of April I was 504 505 422 Q. On the 11th? A. Yes. Q. And you had complete bedrest? A. Yes. Q. Did you go back to the hospital again? A. Yes. On the 14th, which was the next Friday, I started having labor pains. And then I went back to the hospital and the next day I delivered. Q. And what did — did the baby survive? A. No. Q. Was it stillborn? A. Yes. Q. How long did you stay in the hospital? A. Un- til the 17th. Q. And then you went home, did you? A. Yes. Q. Did you go back to work? A. No. Q. Did you got to the hospital again? Wednesday I started having chest pains and I tried to con- tact my obstetrician and he was busy at the time. I con- tacted my general, you know, family physician. He gave me an appointment for that Friday evening to come in for a check. And so I went. He checked me and found that I had pulmonary embolism, which was a blood clot in my lungs, and he hospitalized me again im- mediately, the same day. Q. How long were you in the hospital that time? A. Until the 29th. Q. When did you return to work? July, I believe it was. Q. All right. I would like to have the marshal show the witness Ex- A. The 6th of hibit XX to the stipulation and ask her if the signature on that is her signature? A. Yes, it is. Q. And you filled out this claim form, did you? A. Yes. Q. And you took it to your doctor, did you? A. Yes. Q. And will you look at the second page. Is that his signature? A. Yes, it is. A. Yes. That 506 423 Q. And do the dates that he states there that you were disabled represent the period from the time you had your pulmonary embolism until you went back? A. Yes. Q. And they don’t cover the period that you were off for miscarriage, does it? A. No, it doesn’t. Q. And he told you it was not due to pregnancy as he states there, is that correct? A. Yes. That’s right. Correct. Q. Now, I want you to look at Exhibit YY and ask you if you received that notice from the company? A. Yes, I did. Q. And you have not been paid the claim? A. No. Q. And you did file a grievance about it? A. Yes. Q. Yes. The company did pay your hospital and doctor bills in connection with all the matters that you have mentioned? A. They did. Q. That is all the questions I have. THE COURT: Any cross-examination, gentlemen? MR. KAMMHOLZ: Your Honor, with reference to Plain- tiffs’ XX, the authenticity has been stipulated, I am advised by Mr. Strauss. THE COURT: Well, the witness just testified that that was the claim tht she filed. MR. KAMMHOLZ: I make reference particularly to the second page and the certification by the doctor. THE COURT: Oh. MS. WEYAND: This is part of our stipulation. MR. KAMMHOLZ: As to authenticity, Your Honor. We object on the ground that it is hearsay as to the alleged reason for absence in that the physician’s certification has not been authenticated. He is not a witness here and it is hearsay. 507 508 424 THE COURT: All right. Overruled. MR. KAMMHOLZ: We have no questions. THE COURT: All right. Unless I hear an objection the witness will be excused. Thank you. (The witness stood aside.) THE COURT: Call your next witness. 509 MS. WEYAND: Mrs. Williams, please. MARY WILLIAMS was called as a witness by and on behalf of the plaintiffs and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified on her oath as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Will you state your name, please? A. Mary Wil- liams. Q. Where do you live? A. Roanoke, Virginia. THE COURT: Could you keep your voice up a little, please? BY MS. WEYAND: Q. By whom are you employed? A. General Elec- tric. Q. When did you start work for the General Electric Company? A. October 26, ’°71 — pardon me, ’70. Q. What? A. October 26, ’70. Q. 1970. 510 When you went to work were you given an employee handbook? A. Yes. Q. I would like to have the marshal show, I believe he has the original, 17-B. I don’t know if she will recognize the Xerox copy of the same. A. Yes. Q. This is the handbook. He will show you the actual handbook. A. Yes. That’s right. 425 Q. You were given an employee handbook of that sort? A. Yes. Q. And do you remember the circumstances in which you were given the employee handbook? A. Orientation, you were given forms. Q. A company representative at an orientation session gave you the handbook? A. Yes. Q. Did they make any explanation to you about what this handbook was to be used for? A. Yes. Q. What did they tell you? A. It has the general rules and, well, things you would want to know about working. Just something you would relate to your job. Q. Do you know what this handbook provided in re- gard to pregnancy? A. No. I didn’t take interest in it because I wasn’t planning to become pregnant. Q. Did you later become pregnant? A. Yes, I did. Q. When did you become pregnant? A. In the lat- ter part of June, °71. Q. How long did you work during your pregnancy the first time you went off? A. Until August — well, I was hospitalized August 4. Q. August 4. Did your doctor tell you why you were hospitalized? A. I was having complications. Q. And how long did you stay in the hospital? A. Five days. Q. Did you go back to work after you got out of the hospital? A. Not immediately. I was out 11 days. Q. Then you went back to work? A. Yes. Q. How long did you continue to work? A. Until September 13. Q. And on September 13 how did you happen to cease work? A. I was having more complications and I went to my gynecologist and we talked and he advised me to discontinue my work. 511 $12 426 Q. And he advised you to cease work. And you did cease work, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Did he give you any other advice as to how you were to take care of yourself at the time he took you off of work? A. Well, I was to take things easy, you know, not exert myself. Q. Did you do your housework during that period? A. No, I didn’t. Q. Did you go out of the house, in the car or to the store or anything? A. No. I didn’t make any trips to the grocery store. Q. You stayed at home? A. Yes. Q. How much time did you spend in bed? A. I was either on the bed or on the couch most of the time. Q. Did you have a baby? A. Yes. Q. When was the baby born? A. February 22, 1972. Q. And what you have described about not doing house- work and not going out in the car was true in the time you went off in September until the baby was born, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. About being on the bed or couch most of the time? A. Yes. Q. When did you go back to work? I believe, or 27. Q. When did your doctor clear you to go back to work? A. It was in the fourth week after I had my baby. Q. And you went to the doctor at that time? A. Well, I called General Electric. They advised me if I waited to come back to work to call my physician and get his approval. I did so and he approved and I called the personnel back and they called my foreman to see if they could use me, if it wasn’t a lack of work. So I went back to work. Q. Now, what kind of a job do you have? A. and work with my hands. I assemble plastics. 513 A. March 26th, 514 I sit 427 Q. How large are the pieces of plastic you assemble? A. They vary, but none of them are over — Q. Very small? A. Very small. Q. Light? A. Yes. Q. This has been your job the whole time you worked at General Electric, has it? A. Yes. Q. It was your job when you got pregnant? A. Yes. Q. I would like to have you look at Plaintiffs’ Exhibit TT, stipulated, and tell me whether or not that is your signature on the first page? A. Yes, it is. Q. And would you look at the second page and tell me if that was the form which you took to your doctor, he filled out and signed? A. Yes, it is. Q. And did you show it to the company, took it to the company then, did you? A. Yes. Q. And did they pay the claim? A. This? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. They did not pay the claim. Company did pay your hospital and doctor bill, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. But they have never to date paid you any disability for the period you were absent? A. No. MS. WEYAND: I believe that is all the questions I have. THE COURT: Any cross-examination? MR. KAMMHOLZ: We have several questions, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KAMMHOLZ: Q. Mrs. Williams, while you have before you the docu- ment that is marked Exhibit TT, and calling your attention to the second page, does your doctor’s signature appear, Julien H. Meyer? A. Yes. Q. He was your doctor? A. Yes. 515 516 428 Q. And above his signature, a few lines above, I call your attention to the printed statement, “The patient has been continually disabled from 9/14/71 through 6/72.” Do you have an explanation as to why the 6/72 appears there? THE COURT: I am sorry, I didn’t hear you, Mrs. Wil- liams. THE WITNESS: I haven’t answered yet. THE COURT: Oh. THE WITNESS: That is June. The reason that appears like that was because my due date was March Ist and he was assuming that I would be out two months or eight weeks and that would bring that up to — BY MR. KAMMHOLZ: Q. When did you return to work? A. March. 27. Q. When was the baby born? A. February 22nd. Q. You indicated something about complications. What, if I may ask, were the complications in connection with the pregnancy? A. I was having cramps and bleeding. Q. I am sorry. What was the last? A. Bleeding. MS. WEYAND: Your Honor, this witness has express- ed to me a reluctance to go into details in a public presen- tation. She will be very happy, if they wish, to go into details in private. THE COURT: It may not be necessary. MR. KAMMHOLZ: I have no further questions. THE COURT: I didn’t think so. Any redirect? MS. WEYAND: No. THE COURT: Unless I hear an objection Mrs. Williams will be excused. Thank you, ma’am. Call your next witness, please. (The witness stood aside.) MS. WEYAND: Mrs. Hall, please. 517 429 BARBARA HALL was called as a witness by and on be- half of the plaintiffs and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified on her oath as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WEYAND: Q. What is your name? A. Barbara Hall. Q. Where do you live? A. Roanoke, Virginia. Q. By whom are you employed? A. General Elec- tric. Q. When did you first become employed by General Electric? A. April 4, 1966. Q. Did you receive an employee handbook at the time you went to work? A. Yes. Q. Did you receive another employee handbook during the time you worked there? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. I would like to have you look at Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 17-B and ask you if you received that handbook? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. Do you remember how you got that handbook? A. They mailed it. Q. It was mailed to you by General Electric? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. Yes. Do you remember about when that was mailed to you? A. Not really. I would say maybe around ’70, but I am not sure. Q. Some time around ’70 you got that in the mail. Did you get pregnant during the period you worked for GE? A. Yes, ! did. Q. When did you get pregnant? of March, 1971. Q. How long did you work during your pregnancy? A. Up until the beginning of my sixth month. A. About the first 518 519 430 Q. Did you discuss with your doctor how long you could work? A. Yes. Q. What did your doctor tell you? A. He said as far as he was concerned as long as I felt good; left it up to me. Q. And was there any time you didn’t feel good? A. No. Q. How did you happen to cease work at the end of your sixth month? A. I took a note to the dispen- sary saying when my baby was due and the nurse said this will be your last working day. Q. Who was the nurse? A. Fern Slaughter. Q. When did you take the note, what your due date was? A. I probably took it about when I was proba- bly a couple of months, right after I found out I was preg- nant. Q. At that time the nurse advised you how long you could continue work, is that correct? A. Right. Q. Do you remember the conversation you had with her? A. Well, just told her how happy I was and she said this will be your last due date — working day, rather. Q. Did you try to file a claim covering the period you were off for sickness for pregnancy? A. Yes, I think I did. Q. Do you know whether the first claim you filed was accepted by the company, whether they took the form and let you turn in the form that you prepared? A. They sent it back saying it did not cover maternity benefits. Q. I want you to look at Plaintiffs’ Exhibit PP with the stipulation, please. Would you tell me if that is your signature on the front page? A. Yes, it is. Q. Would you look at the second page and tell me if that is the signature of your doctor? A. Yes, it is. 520 521 431 Q. Did you try to turn in a form to the company be- fore you turned in this form? A. I am not sure. Q. Another claim form, this is the first claim form you sent the company, was it? A. Yes, I turned in two. Q. You turned in an earlier one. You tried to turn in another one? A. Yes. That is the one they gave back. Q. That one they took? A. Right. Q. Then you later turned in this claim form, is that correct, and got a letter from the company saying they wouldn’t pay this, is that correct? A. Right. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Your Honor — THE COURT: It is a little leading, but it is just to save time. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Counsel is leading. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. When was your baby born? 1971. Q. From the time, the end of the sixth month until the baby was born were you in any way unable to work? A. No. Q. And your doctor did not tell you you couldn’t work? A. Right. He said just so I felt okay. THE COURT: I am sorry. I can’t understand you. THE WITNESS: He said just as long as I felt okay. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. And you felt okay until your baby was born, is that correct? A. Right. Q. Did you have any complication of any kind during your pregnancy? A. No, ma’am. Q. Did you have any complication of any kind in con- nection with your childbirth? A. No. Q. How long were you in the hospital? days. A. November 21, A. Five $22 523 432 Q. Did you try to go back to work after you got out of the hospital? A. They told me to wait until my six weeks was up, after I went to have my checkup, and call in, which I did, and they told me to return back to work in two weeks. Q. Who told you that? A. Mrs. Neal. Q. She is? A. She is the secretary in personnel, I think. Q. To? A. Mr. Peterson. Q. And he is the Director of Personnel, is that correct? A. Yes, ma’am. MS. WEYAND: That is all the questions I have. THE COURT: Any cross? MR. KAMMHOLZ: No questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Unless I hear an objection Mrs. Hall will be excused. Thank you, ma’am. (The witness stood aside.) THE COURT: Call your next witness, please. MS. WEYAND: Mrs. Wiley, please. DORIS WILEY was called as a witness by and on behalf of the plaintiffs and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified on her oath as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Will you, please, state your name? Wiley. Q. Where do you live? Q. By whom are you employed? A. Doris A. Roanoke, Virginia. A. General Elec- Q. When did you first start working for General Elec- A. April 15, 1966. 524 433 Q. What was your job when you started working? A. When I started I worked in silk screen. Q. And did you become pregnant during the time that you were working for General Electric? A. Yes. Q. When did you become pregnant? A. October, 1970. Q. When you went to work for General Electric did you get a copy of the employee handbook? A. Yes. Q. Did you get another one during the time you were working for them? A. Yes. Some time later. Q. When did you get the second one? A. I don’t know. Q. How did it come to you? A. Through the mail. Q. Will you look at 17-B and see if that is the copy that you got through the mail? A. Yes. This looks like it. Q. Did your doctor advise you to stop work during your pregnancy? A. No. Q. Did you discuss with him how long you could work? A. No. Q. When did you stop work? A. April 30, 1971. Q. How did you happen to stop work on April 30? A. Well, I got a notice, I went to my doctor and got the slip with my delivery date on it. Q. Expected delivery date? A. That’s right. And I took it to the dispensary to the nurse and I gave it to her. Q. Do you remember what nurse you gave it to? A. Mrs. Slaughter. Q. Mrs. Slaughter? A. Yes. Q. And you gave it to her, and what did she say? A. She looked at the date that the baby was to be deliv- ered, which was July 28, 1971, and then she walked to the calendar, and she was to see when six months would 525 526 434 be, you know, and first it would have been in the middle of the week but she let me work until the end of that week.” Q. Told you — A. To Apri! 30. She said April 30 would be your last day. Q. Your last day? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. Did your doctor at any time before April 30 advise you to stop work at April 30? A. No. Q. Did your doctor at any time advise you to take it easier or not engage in your usual activities? A. No. Q. When was your baby born? A. July 26, 1971. Q. Did you have any complications? A. No. Q. Neither before it was born nor at the time it was born? A. No. Q. How long were you in the hospital? A. Five days. Q. When did you go back to work? A. September 20, 1971. Q. Did you make an effort to be back before then? A. No. It was my understanding that you couldn’t go back until your baby was eight weeks old, and when I had my six-weeks checkup I called the personnel office and told her when my baby was born and that I had my six- weeks checkup. So she told me that she would call my supervisor and see when I could come back and that she would call me. | And later on that day she called me and told me to re- turn to work September 20, which would have been eight weeks. Q. You did go back that day? A. Yes. Q. What kind of a job were you doing before you be- came pregnant? A. Well, I sit down, engraving. Q. What? A. Engrave. Q. Engrave. $27 528 435 Did this involve lifting any heavy objects? A. No. Q. How long had you been or engraving when you be- came pregnant? A. I worked there six years. Q. All the time you were there? A. Yes. That’s right. Q. I would like to have the marshal show you Plain- tiffs’ Exhibit XX for identification to the stipulation and ask you whether that is your signature on the first page? A. Yes, it is. Q. Will you look at the second page and tell me if that is your doctor’s signature? A. Yes. This is his signature. Q. When you got that form signed by the doctor did you file it with the company, give it to GE as your claim, did you? A. Well, when I, let’s see, I left this form at the doctor’s office and they mailed it in. Q. Yes. Now, did you hear from the company about it? A. Yes. I received a letter at first thanking them for my claim and then another one saying that they didn’t, you know, they weren’t going to pay it. Q. Couldn’t pay the claim? A. That’s right. Q. Did the company pay your hospital and doctor’s bill? A. Yes, they did. MS. WEYAND: That is all the questions I have. THE COURT: Any cross-examnation, gentlemen? MR. KAMMHOLZ: No questions, Your Honor. One moment. THE COURT: All right. MR. KAMMHOLZ: Your Honor, may I withdraw the “no questions,” Your Honor? THE COURT: That is all right. 529 436 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KAMMHOLZ: Q. Mrs. Wiley, have you had another child since the one you described in your testimony? A. No. MR. KAMMHOLZ: No further questions. THE COURT: Any redirect? MS. WEYAND: No. THE COURT: Unless I hear an objection the witness will be excused. Thank you, ma’am. Call your next witness. (The witness stood aside.) MS. WEYAND: Mr. Delano, please. ROBERT GORDON DELANO was called as a witness by and on behalf of the plaintiffs and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified on his oath as follows: 530 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Will you, please, state your full name? A. Robert Gordon Delano. Q. Are you an employee of the — where do you live? A. Salem, Virginia. Q. Are you an employee of the General Electric Com- pany? A. Yes, I am. Q. When did you start to work for the General Electric Company? A. I started in August of 1956. Q. Have you been continuously employed since that date? A. Yes, I have. Q. Are you an officer of the union? A. Yes, I am. Q. What position do you hold in the union? A. I currently hold the position of Administrative Chief Steward. Q. What is the Local number at Salem? A. Local 161. 531 437 Q. And this is affiliated with the International Union of Electrical — A. Yes, that’s right. Q. How long have you been Administrative Chief Assist- ant? A. My current office has been since early 1970. Q. And what do your duties involve as Chief Adminis- trative S.eward? A. Well, my duties involve a number of things. I take care of the administrative paperwork, of the processing of grievances. I advise shop stewards on filing of grievances, the wording of grievances. I am Chairman of the Steward Council which is made up of all the stewards in the shop, which we have about 70 of them currently. And I take care of arbitration cases, act as counsel for the union in arbitration cases. I negotiate with the company at the second level of the grievance procedure. And I work or negotiate with the company on local supplements and other agreements that we may enter into locally. Q. Did it come to your attention that some of the women were desirous of filing claims for sickness and accident bene- fits for periods they were disabled by pregnancy? A. Yes, it did. Q. When did this first come to your attention, as far as you best can recall? A. The best of my recollection it was in August of 1970, I believe it was 1971, August, 1971. I had a discussion with one of our Chief Stewards, our First Chief Steward by the name of John McDaniels, and he said he heard that the company was not accepting claims. I researched some of our books and I called our office in New York, our insurance specialist in New York City, Jimmy Lawalin and advised him of the problem we were having. 532 438 And he in turn talked to our attorney in — MR. KAMMHOLZ: I object. THE COURT: Don’t tell us any conversation, please. THE WITNESS: All right. BY MS. WEYAND: Q. Did there come a time when the company did ac- cept claims? A. Yes, there did. Q. Were you notified by someone how you could file the claims with the company? A. Yes. I received a notification from Robert Friedman that the company would now accept these claim forms. Q. And they did accept them? they did. Q. Do you remember when that was? A. To the best of my recollection, it was a month or so, two months later probably, about two months later. Q. And you have heard the young ladies from Salem testify, Mrs. Hall, Mrs. Wiley — A. Yes, ma’am. Q. And those were claim forms that the company ac- cepted? A. Yes. They accepted those claim forms, yes. Q. Those are the first ones, as far as you know, that were filed in Salem? A. Yes. I believe there was one or — Alberta Smith, I believe, that filed one about that time. ‘ Q. Did any of these employees file grievances when their claims were denied? A. Yes, they did. Q. Did you process these grievances? A. Yes, I did. Q. Would you describe what processing you engaged in? A. Well, what we did in processing the grievances, first of all we advised the stewards through our Chief Stewards of the company that they were not paying claims. A. Yes, ma’am, 533 534 439 We advised them if they knew any women that had similar problems of pregnancy where the company did not, would not pay or wanted to file a claim, they should de so. If the company refused a claim then she should file a grievance. And I worked up some language and sent it out to our Chief Stewards who in turn were supposed to correspond this to our stewards to let them know how to word the grievance. Q. And the company denied the grievances? A. Yes, ma’am, they did. Q. And you took those grievances to third step? A. Yes, we did. Q. Would you describe what is known as the third step in grievance procedure in General Electric? A. Yes. If I could — could I start at one? Q. If you will, please. A. The first step, the pro- cedure is that the steward, at the foreman level. The sec- ond step of the procedure is your union’s officers and the company representatives, normally from employee relations at the local location. The third step of the grievance procedure is the head- quarters level of the General Electric Company and head- quarters level of the union office in New York. Q. And these grievances were proposed, Mrs. Hall, Mrs. Wiley and Mrs. Williams were processed through the three steps? A. Mrs. Williams was not processed. Q. The other two were proposed? A. Yes, they were. Q. And there were other grievances filed by other em- ployees through the third step? A. Yes. Q. And you were unsuccessful? A. That’s right. Q. That is all the questions I have. THE COURT: Any cross-examination? MR. KAMMHOLZ: One moment, please, Your Honor. Just a few. 535 526 440 THE COURT: I have one. May I? Then it may be you can follow. When you say the company not accepting claims, you mean they wouldn’t consider them, Mr. Delano? THE WITNESS: You are taling to me? Yes, when they tried to turn the claims in they said the girls in the office looked at it and says, “No, we do not accept claims on pregnancy. Here.” Gave the claim back. THE COURT: Through your good offices, or some- body’s, they finally got to consider them? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: And rejected them? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: All right. A lot of progress. All right, sir. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KAMMHOLZ: Q. Mr. Delano, since when have you been the Adminis- trative Chief Steward? A. Well, my current office has been since 1970. Of course we are reelected every two years, you know, if the membership agrees. I held the office of Administrative Chief Steward once before, but I took a year’s rest and went out of office and then came back into the office the next year. Q. Prior to 1970 were you steward or — A. I had been — well, I had had several offices, actually been a shop steward on the floor in the area where I worked. I had also been a trustee for a short period of time. I had then what we call just a Chief Steward. This was the job the Administrative Chief Steward be- fore, you know. And also I had been an Assistant Chief Steward before that time. 537 44) Q. About what time frame are we talking about? A. Okay. Well, I can put this in — I would have to guess at the dates. I couldn’t give you exactly. I first became Chief Steward, I believe it was in 1965, I believe. Before that I was an Assistant Chief Steward, 1964, I believe. I believe it was in 1963 that I was a trustee. And before that time I was a shop steward in the plant, just a regular shop steward. Q. Thank you very much. Your credentials are impressive. You are familiar, are you not, with the General Electric insurance plan? A. Yes, I am. Q. I am holding the booklet in my hand. Prior to the grievances which you filed in 1971 in con- nection with claimed weekly disability benefits or absences due to pregnancy or childbirth, the union had not filed any such grievances; is that right? A. Not that I can recall. I don’t recall those. Q. Indeed the booklet to which I referred provides specifically that weekly sickness and accident insurance will not be payable for any absence due to pregnancy or resulting childbirth or to complications in connection there- with, you recall that? A. Yes. Q. So when you did file grievances beginning in late 1971, was this predicated on your view that there was a change in the law? A. Well, it was a combination, combination of my thoughts, I guess. Just prior to that time I had received some legal documents, or what we call “Keeping up with the Law,” from our legal depart- ment. And these documents I review every once in a while and one night I happened to be reading one of these documents and it come up about the case, the Cohen case, 442 443 and I was reading that and I read it and thought about it, URT: ing, Miss W tle- you know, and read a number of other cases, arbitration THE COURT: Good morning, Miss Weyand and gentle men. cases and so on and so forth. Then when these questions MS. WEYAND: Mr. DuBow is going to present the come up about the company not accepting these claim next siete forms I got to thinking about that and | picked up the insurance book and read what it said in there. And I put these things together and at that point I called our people in New York. 538 Q. And thereupon you filed a grievance or some — A. I didn’t find the grievances. They were there. THE COURT: Miss Weyand, you will have to stand when you address the bench, please, ma’am. All right, Mr. DuBow. Come around, please. MR. DuBOW: Sherrie O’Steen. © Yao qameed @e cient A. | enced SHERRIE ELIZABETH O’STEEN was called as a wit- the grievances, yes, sir. ness by and on behalf of the plaintiffs and, having been Q. On the basis of what you understood to be a change first duly sworn, was examined and testified on her oath in the law? A. Well, I can give you my personal opin- as follows: ion if that is what you want, yes. DIRECT EXAMINATION Q. Yes. BY MR DuBOW: That is all, Your Honor. Q. Will you, please, state for the record your name? THE COURT: I can’t resist it. A. Sherrie O’Steen. You are in error. It was not a change in the law. Q. And your address? THE WITNESS: I don’t know that it was a change in 545 A. 918 Clark Street, Mayfield, Kentucky. the law or not. Q. Do you have any children? A. Yes, sir. THE COURT: I know. Q. How many? A. Two. THE WITNESS: It was my interpretation that there Q. And their ages? A. Three and eight months. was something wrong here. Q. Were you employed by General Electric? A. Yes, THE COURT: Thank you. sir. You may step down. Q. At what plant location? A. Portsmouth. Call your next witness. Q. Portsmouth, Virginia? A. Virginia. (The witness stood aside.) Q. And when did you start to work with General Elec- : . : ; tric? A. June 1, 71. a6 PROCEEDINGS Q. Okay. (July 25, 1973) (Wednesday at 11 o'clock) What job position did you hold with General Electric? THE CLERK: Civil Action 142-72-R. Martha V. Gil- A. Processor on an assembly line. bert, et al., versus General Electric Company. Q. Now, did you become pregnant during your em- Continued from yesterday. ployment with General Electric? A. Yes, sir. 546 547 t44 Q. And what date did you leave General Electric on maternity leave? A. I left October 15. Q. What year? | ae J Q. Now, when did you give birth to your child? A. November 21, ’72. Q. Were there any complications relating to your birth of your child? A. No, sir. Q. And how long were you hospitalized? A. Five days. Q. Did General Electric pay your hospital bills? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was your doctor? A. Dr. Leonard Davis. Q. Where is he from? A. Portsmouth. Q. And when did your doctor advise you to return to work? A. When my child was six weeks old. Q. And when did you return to work? A. When the child was six weeks old, the first of January. Q. Were you told anything by the General Electric Company when you went off on maternity leave regard- ing your return to work? A. Miss Short, the Person- nel Manager, told me that I was to return to work when the child was six weeks old, and if not, to call and let them know why I could not return when he was six weeks old. Q. Now, did you have occasion to receive an employee handbook 4 Portsmouth, Virginia plant? A. Yes, sir. Q. And how did you get it? A. When I was hired. Q. Did you read it? A. Yes, sir. Q. I will ask the marshal to give you Stipulated Exhibit U-3, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 72-B. THE COURT: 72-B? MR. DuBOW: 72-B of plaintiffs’ exhibits. Excuse me, 17-B, I am sorry, 17-B, employee handbook of the Salem plant, and call your attention to page six, the second column, where it says “Maternity Absence.” 548 549 445 Can you read that into the record, please, the first para- graph only of “‘Maternity Absence”? THE WITNESS: “‘It is the policy of the department that pregnant employees will be required to terminate active work at the end of the sixth month of pregnancy. The employee may terminate active work at any time be- fore the end of the six months if she so elects.” BY MR. DuBOW: Q. Now, what you have just read is the language in the Portsmouth handbook. How does that compare? A. It is exactly the same. Q. Okay. Now, after you received this employee — after you re- ceived an employee handbook — you can hand that back — after you received an employee handbook did you ever have occasion to receive written information from General Electric regarding a change in that policy? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever have occasion to see a notice posted on any bulletin board regarding a change in that policy? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever have occasion to hear an announce- ment by General Electric regarding a change in that policy? A. No, sir. Q. Now, what month of your pregnancy did you work through? A. I worked to my eighth month. Q. How were you [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2097%3A04. Public record. Not legal advice.