lesson  Sixteen

  Section One: News in Brief

  Tapescript
  1. President Reagan announced today, that he       and Soviet leader
  Gorbachev will meet in Iceland October I 1 th and 12th to prepare for
  a summit between the two leaders in the United States later this year.
  The announcement came after the release yesterday from Moscow of
  American reporter Nicholas Daniloff and a court appearance in
  New York this morning by accused Soviet spy Gennadi Zakharov,
  who pleaded no contesti6espionage charges and was. told to leave
  the United States within twenty-four hours.  Zakharov is now on his
  way back to the Soviet Union and Daniloff has arrived back in the
  United States.  The movement of Daniloff and Zakharov and plans
  for the meeting in Iceland were also announced today in Moscow.
  The BBC's Peter Ruff reports.  'The announcement makes it clear
  that this was at Mr. Gorba hev'@nm   iation, and it's,also pointed out
                             c        v
  that this is simply a preparator    eeting to a possible summit. It's
  pointed out here that it will enable the Soviet Union to focus on
  arms issues, particularly the Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star
  Wars program, President Reagan's refusal to join a test
  and a possible arms deal involving medium-rangi
  Europe.  In a separate announcement, the official news agency Tas
  revealed that Gennadi Zakharov had, as they put it, been released
  from custody and was returning home.  It made no mention of the
  fact that I ie'd pleaded no contest in a court in New York.  Then came
  ,the first official confirmation from the Soviet Union that the
  Americar reporter Nicholas Daniloff had been expelled, The news
  item did aot refer to him as a spy but as someone who'd been en-
  gaged in inadmissible activity." BBC correspondent Peter Ruff in

Moscow.

 2. There was                   the Soviet press today that prominent
 Soviet disside               and his wif@ will be allowed to leave for
 the U             s by October 7th. Secretary of State Shultz made
 that announcement in Washington saying Orlov was the driving
 force behind the Helsinki Monitoring Group of Civil Rights
 Activists.  In 1978, Orlov was sentenced to seven years in a prison
 camp to be followed by five more years in internal exile.  Shultz said
 Orlov's release was in exchange for that of Zakharov and had noth-
 ing to do with Daniloff's freedom.

  Section Two: News in Detail

  Tapescript
      In just eleven days President Reagan and Soviet leader
  Gorbachev will meet in Iceland for what is described by the two sides
  as an idt@rim summit or a preparatory summit.  The announcement
  was made at the White House this morning at a news conference
  held by President Reagan and Secretary of State George Shultz cal-
  led to discuss the Iceland meeting and the negotiations which had led
  up to the release of Nicholas Daniloff yesterday.  Negotiations for
  the release of Daniloff went on for over a month.  Today, at the same
  time that the White House news conference was going on, Soviet
  Foreign Minister Shevardnadze met with the press in New York.
  NPR's Jim Angle was at the White House, and Mike Shuster was
  with the Soviet Foreign Minister.
       'Jim, since Daniloff was only released yesterday, and the details
  of the negotiations leading up to his release were not known yester-
  day, didn't this arm uncement of a summit announced before any

  discussion of the D-.tniloff affair come as a surprise?'
       "What was a surprise is that we did not know it was co
  is not a surprise if you look at the overall context of preparations for
  a summit and the discussions so far.  Of course, the US had said it
  would not attend a summit until the Daniloff case wag resolved, and
  the President said today that he could not have accepted this
  pre-summit preparatory meeting if Daniloff were still being held.
  Today the matter was resolved.  At least we heard that the other de-
  tails of the matter's   resolution, including the fact that Gennadi
  Zakharov, the accused Soviet spy, was allowed to plead no conte       'st in
  a New York court and allowed to leave the Urited States.  The reso-
  lution of that matter cleared the way for summit preparations.  The
  meeting, of course, this pre-summit meeting, was proposed by Secre-
  tary Gorbachev, in a letter delivered to President Reagan by Soviet
  Foreign Minister Shevardnadze on September ]9th.  The
  announcement of this meeting todav at the same time as the resolu-
  tion of Zakharov's status is a way of both sides saying that they con-
  sider the Daniloff matter resolved with the exception of one or two
  details and that no obstacles now exist in the preparations for sum-
  mit later this year in the US.'
       'At the news conference this morning both President Reagan
  and Secretary of State Shultz stress that there had been no trade for
  Nicholas Daniloff.  Jim, was this a trade?'
       " Well, clearly, Daniloff's release, Zakharov's quick trial and
  departure, and the release of the Soviet dissident were all part of one
  -package.  But to the extent that definitions are important, especially
  in the diplomatic world and in terms of principles and precedents,
  the US has insisted that there was no trade involved here.  They say
  Daniloff was released without a trial, an     M iC'     acknowledgement,
  if you will, by the Soviet, that he is not a spy. Kakharov, on the other
  hand, in pleading no contest to espionage ch4rges, allows, in a sense,
  the US assertion that he was a s      to stand. resident Reagan soujzht

              today in his rema      t W te H se that these were
             Uers.  " There is no connection between these two
re eases.     I don't know just what you have said so far about this.
But there were other arrangement-. with regard to Zakharov that re-
sulted in his being freed." Margo, the President's referring there to
what the US sees as the only trade involved in this whole package,
and that is the Soviet agreement to allow Soviet human rights
activist Yuri Orlov and his wife to leave the Soviet Union by October
7th."

  Section Three: Special Report

  Tapegcript;
       Today in the Supreme Court of the United States, a case in-
  volving maternity leave: at issue wh6ther,. states may require
  employers to guarantee that pregnant workers are able to return to
  their jobs after a limited period of unpaid disability leave.  NPR's
  Nina Totenberg reports.
       Nine states already have laws or regulations that require all
  employers to protect the jobs of workers who are disabled by preg-
  nancy or childbirth.  Depending on what the- Supreme Court rules in
  the case it heard today, those laws will either die or flourish.  The test
  case is from California.  It began with Lillian Garland, the
  receptionist at California Federal Savings and Loan.  In 1982, she re-
  turned to work after having a child and found she had no job-,-
       "After working for California Federal for over three and a @i
  years, I was told at that time they no longer had apposition available
  for me.  My question was, 'Well, what about the job that I've had fori
  so many years?' And they said,- 'We hired the person that youi
  trained in your place.' I was in shock."
       Officials at California Federal say Garland should not have
  been surprised, that she'd been told at the time she took pregnancy
  leave that her job was not guaranteed.  But the fact is that California
  law requires all employers in the state to provide up to four months'
  disability leave for pregnant workers.  The leave time is unpaid, and
  it is only available to women who, because of pregnancy or child--

  birth, are physically unable to work.  The law does require that such
  workers get back the same job unless business necessity makes that
  impossible.  So when Lillian Garland was told she couldn't have her
  old job back, she filed discrimination charges against the bank.  The
  bank then challenged the California pregnancy disability law in
  court, claiming that the state law amounted to illegal sex discrimina-
  tion.  The bank's reasoning went like this: Federal law bans discrimi-
  nation in employment. based on pregnancy, but the state law man-
  dates disability leave to women for pregnancy while denying the
  same leave time to men who are disabled by other ailments, such as
  heart attacks and strokes.  California counters that the state law does
  not discriminate between men and women, that it treats them both
  the same as to,all, ailments, bui-gra@ts@disability leave only to preg-
  nant workers.  Moreover, California argues that the state law in fact
  equalizes the situation between men and women, allowing them bbth
                                    h      bt he pregnancy disability
  to have children without          t_FV j     IT)- C/'-
  case has produced so@triaViZe @Ae             s  'Me Reagan Admini-
  stration is siding with the California business community in arguing
  that federal law requires no special treatment for pregnancy.  Many
  of the major national women's organizations agree, but argue that
  the way to cure the problem is to give everybody unpaid disability
  leave in case of illness.  Other women's organizations, particularly in
  California, argue that singling out pregnancy for special treatment is
  not sex discrimination.  Feminist Betty Friedan defends the
  California law.
      'It's not discrimination against men to do something about the
  fact that women give birth to children.  It's a fact of life.  If men could
  carry the baby, if men could go through the nine months, if men
  could have the labor pain, you know, they also should have coverage
  for pregnancy.  You're not discriihinating against men; you're recog-
  nizing a fact of life: that women are different than men.'
      On the other side, the lawyer for the bank, Ted Olson, argues

  that special treatment for pregnancy is ob iously discrimination, an
  that California companies risk bein             by one group of people
                                          g sue
  ti'iey follow fe,,iei-al law and by another group of people if they follo
  state law.
       "The Ctlifornia law requires special treatment of pregnancy; th
  federal law requires equal treatment of pregnancy.  An employer-
  entitled to know which law it must follow.'
       The fact is, though, that much of the California business co
  )i,tinity objects, most of all, to being told that it has to provide an
  Disability leave.  Here is Don Butler, President of the Merchants an
  Manufacturers Association, which is a party to this law suit.
       "What we have to get back to, though; is who's going to set th
  disability leave policies.  Is the federal government, is the state o
  California, or are we, the employers, going to set?  You, th
  employee, have the choice of working for our company under the fol
  lowing conditions or working for another company under othe
  conditions.  And I believe that that was what built@this country to b
  a great free enterprise system.  And if we're going to legislate it, the
  we're going to destroy a lot of the incentives to ...'
      'But basically you don't want to be told to have a disability pol
  icy at all."
      'Right.'
      In the Supreme Court this morning, perhap!                          ues-
  tion was asked by Justice Louis Powell, who po@
  situation to California Deputy Attorney General Marion Johnston.
  "Let us assume,' said Justice Powell, "that a man and a woman in
  the same company leave their jobs on the same day: he, because he is
  ill; she, because she's about to have a child.  And they return on the
  'same day, but under the California law she gets herjob back and he
  does not.  Is that fair?" asks Justice Powell.  Lawyer Johnston re-
  sponded, "It may not be fair, but it's legal.  California law,' she said,
  simply requires that employers treat all their employees, men and

women, in the same way with respect to pregnancy.  But, since men

                                          e off." A'decision in the
 don't get pregnant, they don't get the ti mted until next year.  I'm Nina Totenberg
 California case is not expec in Washington- ,