This article examines the legal and economic arguments behind the separate versus equal treatment approaches to maternity/parental leave. Three sets of legal arguments that were advanced in the U. S. Supreme Court caseCalifornia Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Guerra,1987 are examined. The economic arguments that correspond to each of these legal arguments are then developed, including the arguments of groups who (1) oppose all versions of mandated leave, (2) support mandated parental leave without qualification (the Separate Treatment Approach), and (3) support some, but not all formulations (the Equal Treatment Approach).Each of these theoretical perspectives generate specific hypotheses regarding the potential compensation and employment effects for women of childbear‐ing age. These hypotheses are tested with data from the Current Population Survey, May 1979 and May 1983. Overall the empirical findings suggest that parental leave legislation can significantly improve the labor market position of women of childbearing age, but all approaches are not equal and some methods may undermine, rather than improve their positio