Legal Opinion
Boren v. Department of Employment Development
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 17, 1976No. Civ. 14138PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
THE COURT. *
Plaintiff, a working wife and mother, was denied unemployment insurance compensation. She charges that the disqualification statute unconstitutionally discriminates against female workers. The statute, section 1264 of the California Unemployment Insurance Code, disqualifies any person leaving his or her job because of marital or domestic duties and who does not supply the family’s major support.
The plaintiff is Betty Ann Boren, who worked at a drive-in restaurant. Mrs. Boren had four children, the youngest an infant. Her weekly wage, combined with her husband’s earnings,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Shapiro v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Sherbert v. VernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Reed v. ReedSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Frontiero v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Sanchez v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Richards v. League of United Latin American CitizensTexas Supreme Court · 1994
- Norman v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- Employment Development Department v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Altaville Drug Store, Inc. v. Employment Development DepartmentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.