Justices Refuse to Narrow Anti-Bias Law

SAN FRANCISCO —  The state Supreme Court held Monday that part-time workers for thousands of dentists and other small employers are protected under California’s anti-discrimination laws.

The court, in a case watched closely by women’s and employment-rights groups, rejected 6 to 1 an attempt to overturn a 1983 ruling by the state Fair Employment and Housing Commission broadly applying the laws’ protections.

The justices resolved a technical but far-reaching question arising under a statutory provision that gives the commission power over any employer “regularly employing five or more persons.” The court ruled that employers with five part-time or full-time workers on the payroll are covered, even if five are not present every workday.

“Because the Fair Employment and Housing Act is remedial legislation, which declares the opportunity to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination is a civil right . . . the court must construe (the act) broadly,” Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote for the court.

In dissent, Justice Armand Arabian said the court had departed from a “reasonable, common-sense” interpretation of the law and that the effect of the ruling might be to force small employers to eliminate part-time work.

The employment commission’s broad interpretation of the act to small employers was challenged by an Anaheim dentist found responsible for sex discrimination after refusing to rehire a dental assistant after she took a six-week pregnancy leave.

The California Dental Assn. joined in support of the dentist, saying that forcing dentists and others with fewer than than five employees working daily to comply with the law was overly costly and burdensome for small employers. The association noted that most of the state’s 24,000 dentists were small employers, relying heavily on hygienists and others able only to work once or twice a week.

Lawyers for the commission and its supporters hailed Monday’s ruling, saying it particularly would strengthen protections for dental and doctor’s employees, many of whom are women who work part time and who often seek pregnancy leave.

“This is a major victory, not only for pregnant workers but all employees across California now subject to the act,” said Patricia A. Shiu of the Employment Law Center. State Deputy Atty. Gen. Henry Torres called the decision “very significant,” saying that a ruling to the contrary would have invited small employers to realign work schedules to evade the law’s requirements.

But Grace E. Emery of Santa Ana, lawyer for the dentist, said the decision could discourage small employers from offering job-sharing or other part-time work, as well as forcing higher costs that employers would find difficult to pay. “This will put some people out of business, or drive them from California,” Emery said.

The case arose from the refusal of the dentist, Dr. J. E. Robinson, to reinstate Josephine Saul as a dental assistant after her pregnancy leave ended in February, 1984. At the time, Robinson employed six people, but only on two days a week were there as many as five employees on the job.

Saul filed a complaint with the commission charging that Robinson had violated state fair employment laws guaranteeing unpaid pregnancy leave. The commission agreed, ordering Robinson to pay nearly $13,000 in back wages and $1,295 in retirement plan contributions. Robinson took the issue to court, contending that he was exempt from the law because he had fewer than five employees working daily.