## Facts

- David A. Johnson worked full-time for the University of Iowa; his wife worked part-time for the University.
- While expecting a child, Johnson learned that he could not use accrued sick leave for paid time off after the birth, unlike certain other employees.
- The University’s Parental Leave Policy allowed biological mothers to take leave for “pregnancy-related temporary disability,” charged to accrued sick leave (up to six weeks without disability documentation).
- The policy allowed newly adoptive parents (including domestic partners) one week (five days) of paid adoption leave charged to accrued sick leave, without regard to sex.
- Johnson alleged he was denied paid leave for post-birth bonding/caregiving time comparable to leave allegedly available to biological mothers and adoptive parents.
- Johnson sued the University, the State Board of Regents, and several officials in their official capacities under federal and state equal protection and anti-discrimination law.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether a policy permitting biological mothers to use accrued sick leave for pregnancy-related temporary disability, while not providing biological fathers paid sick leave for post-birth bonding/caregiving, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the same policy violates the Iowa Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.
3. Whether the policy constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII.
4. Whether the policy constitutes sex discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on all claims.
- The court construed the biological-mother provision as medical leave for pregnancy-related temporary disability, not a general parenting or bonding benefit.
- Because biological fathers are not similarly situated to biological mothers regarding pregnancy-related disability, denying fathers paid sick leave for non-medical bonding time did not constitute sex-based unequal treatment.
- The adoption-leave provision was gender neutral and did not show sex-based role stereotyping.
- On the Title VII and Iowa Civil Rights Act claims, Johnson failed to show denial of benefits for a comparable disability or disparate treatment of men for comparable medical conditions.

## Legal Principles

- A leave benefit tied to pregnancy-related temporary disability may lawfully differ from benefits available to non-pregnant employees because it addresses a sex-specific medical condition rather than a generalized parental role.
- Equal protection analysis turns on whether the policy treats similarly situated persons differently based on sex; pregnancy-related disability and non-medical bonding time are not comparable conditions.
- Under Title VII, treating pregnancy and related conditions as temporary disabilities is permissible when administered as disability-related leave and not as sex-based allocation of parenting benefits.
- A modest, sex-neutral adoption leave benefit does not transform a pregnancy-disability leave provision into unlawful sex discrimination.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the University’s parental leave policy because the paid leave for biological mothers was tied to pregnancy-related temporary disability, adoptive parents received a gender-neutral paid benefit, and the plaintiff did not establish unequal treatment of similarly situated employees under equal protection or state and federal employment discrimination law.


Johnson v. Univ. of Iowa, 431 F.3d 325 (8th Cir. 2005)