newport
news
shipbuilding
dry
dock
eeoc
argued
april
decided
june
section
title
vii
civil
rights
act
makes
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
discriminate
employee
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
employee
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
title
vii
amended
pregnancy
discrimination
act
prohibit
discrimination
basis
pregnancy
petitioner
employer
amended
health
insurance
plan
provide
female
employees
hospitalization
benefits
conditions
extent
medical
conditions
plan
provided
less
extensive
pregnancy
benefits
spouses
male
employees
petitioner
filed
action
federal
district
challenging
eeoc
guidelines
indicated
amended
plan
unlawful
eeoc
turn
filed
action
petitioner
alleging
discrimination
basis
sex
male
employees
petitioner
provision
hospitalization
benefits
district
upheld
lawfulness
petitioner
amended
plan
dismissed
eeoc
complaint
consolidated
appeal
appeals
reversed
held
pregnancy
limitation
petitioner
amended
health
plan
discriminates
male
employees
violation
pp
congress
enacting
pregnancy
discrimination
act
overturned
holding
general
electric
gilbert
exclusion
disabilities
caused
pregnancy
employer
disability
plan
providing
general
coverage
constitute
discrimination
based
sex
also
rejected
reasoning
employed
case
differential
treatment
pregnancy
discrimination
women
become
pregnant
pp
pregnancy
discrimination
act
makes
clear
discriminatory
exclude
pregnancy
coverage
otherwise
inclusive
benefits
plan
thus
petitioner
health
plan
unlawfully
gives
married
male
employees
benefit
package
dependents
less
inclusive
dependency
coverage
provided
married
female
employees
pp
merit
petitioner
argument
prohibitions
title
vii
extend
pregnant
spouses
statute
applies
discrimination
employment
since
pregnancy
discrimination
act
makes
clear
discrimination
based
pregnancy
face
discrimination
based
sex
since
spouse
sex
always
opposite
employee
sex
discrimination
female
spouses
provision
fringe
benefits
also
discrimination
male
employees
pp
stevens
delivered
opinion
burger
brennan
white
marshall
blackmun
joined
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
powell
joined
post
andrew
kramer
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
gerald
skoning
deborah
crandall
harriet
shapiro
argued
cause
respondent
brief
solicitor
general
lee
deputy
solicitor
general
wallace
philip
sklover
vella
fink
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
stephen
bokat
cynthia
wicker
chamber
commerce
frederick
shea
robert
mcroberts
john
gibbons
thomas
walsh
emerson
electric
benjamin
boley
michael
giannotto
national
railway
labor
conference
robert
williams
douglas
mcdowell
lorence
kessler
equal
employment
advisory
council
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
lawrence
trygstad
richard
schwab
angeles
judith
lichtman
judith
schaeffer
american
association
university
women
et
al
albert
woll
marsha
berzon
laurence
gold
bernard
kleiman
carl
frankel
carole
wilson
winn
newman
american
federation
labor
congress
industrial
organizations
et
al
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
congress
decided
overrule
decision
general
electric
gilbert
amending
title
vii
civil
rights
act
prohibit
sex
discrimination
basis
pregnancy
effective
date
act
petitioner
amended
health
insurance
plan
provide
female
employees
hospitalization
benefits
conditions
extent
medical
conditions
plan
continued
however
provide
less
favorable
pregnancy
benefits
spouses
male
employees
question
presented
whether
amended
plan
complies
amended
statute
petitioner
plan
provides
hospitalization
coverage
defined
category
employees
defined
category
dependents
dependents
covered
plan
include
employees
spouses
unmarried
children
days
years
age
older
dependent
children
prior
april
scope
plan
coverage
eligible
dependents
identical
coverage
employees
covered
males
whether
employees
dependents
treated
alike
purposes
hospitalization
coverage
covered
females
whether
employees
dependents
also
treated
alike
moreover
one
relevant
exception
coverage
males
females
identical
exception
limitation
hospital
coverage
pregnancy
apply
hospital
confinement
plan
amended
provided
hospitalization
coverage
male
female
employees
medical
conditions
differentiated
female
employees
spouses
male
employees
provision
benefits
booklet
describing
plan
petitioner
explained
amendment
gave
rise
litigation
way
effective
april
maternity
benefits
female
employees
paid
hospital
confinement
described
question
applies
deliveries
beginning
april
thereafter
maternity
benefits
wife
male
employee
continue
paid
described
part
question
app
pet
cert
passage
pregnancy
discrimination
act
amendment
petitioner
plan
became
effective
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
issued
interpretive
guidelines
form
questions
answers
two
questions
numbers
made
clear
eeoc
consider
petitioner
amended
plan
unlawful
number
read
follows
must
employer
provide
health
insurance
coverage
medical
expenses
conditions
spouses
male
employees
dependents
employees
employer
provides
coverage
dependents
employer
required
institute
coverage
however
employer
insurance
program
covers
medical
expenses
spouses
female
employees
must
equally
cover
medical
expenses
spouses
male
employees
including
arising
conditions
insurance
cover
conditions
dependents
long
excludes
conditions
dependents
male
female
employees
equally
fed
reg
apr
divided
panel
appeals
fourth
circuit
reversed
reasoning
since
company
health
insurance
plan
contains
distinction
based
pregnancy
results
less
complete
medical
coverage
male
employees
spouses
female
employees
spouses
impermissible
statute
rehearing
case
en
banc
reaffirmed
conclusion
panel
dissent
three
judges
believed
statute
intended
protect
female
employees
ability
inability
work
protect
spouses
male
employees
important
question
presented
case
decided
differently
appeals
ninth
circuit
eeoc
lockheed
missiles
space
granted
certiorari
ultimately
question
must
decide
whether
petitioner
discriminated
male
employees
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
sex
within
meaning
title
vii
although
pregnancy
discrimination
act
clarified
meaning
certain
terms
section
neither
act
underlying
statute
contains
definition
word
discriminate
order
decide
whether
petitioner
plan
discriminates
male
employees
sex
must
therefore
go
beyond
bare
statutory
language
accordingly
shall
consider
whether
congress
enacting
pregnancy
discrimination
act
overturned
specific
holding
general
electric
gilbert
also
rejected
test
discrimination
employed
case
believe
proper
test
petitioner
plan
unlawful
protection
affords
married
male
employees
less
comprehensive
protection
affords
married
female
employees
issue
general
electric
gilbert
legality
disability
plan
provided
company
employees
weekly
compensation
periods
disability
resulting
nonoccupational
causes
plan
excluded
disabilities
arising
pregnancy
district
appeals
concluded
discriminated
female
employees
sex
reversed
noting
title
vii
define
term
discrimination
applied
analysis
derived
cases
construing
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
constitution
gilbert
opinion
quoted
length
geduldig
aiello
case
upheld
constitutionality
excluding
pregnancy
coverage
california
disability
insurance
plan
since
finding
discrimination
must
trigger
case
finding
unlawful
employment
practice
added
geduldig
precisely
point
holding
exclusion
pregnancy
plan
providing
general
coverage
discrimination
dissenters
gilbert
took
issue
majority
assumption
fourteenth
amendment
standard
discrimination
coterminous
applicable
title
vii
brennan
dissenting
stevens
dissenting
matter
statutory
interpretation
dissenters
rejected
holding
plan
exclusion
disabilities
caused
pregnancy
constitute
discrimination
based
sex
justice
brennan
explained
facially
discriminatory
company
devise
policy
pregnancy
offers
protection
risks
even
unique
men
heavily
male
dominated
inaccurate
describe
program
dividing
potential
recipients
two
groups
pregnant
women
nonpregnant
persons
insurance
programs
deal
future
risks
rather
historic
facts
rather
appropriate
classification
persons
face
risk
pregnancy
stevens
dissenting
company
plan
intended
provide
employees
protection
risk
uncompensated
unemployment
caused
physical
disability
discriminated
basis
sex
giving
men
protection
categories
risk
giving
women
partial
protection
thus
dissenters
asserted
statute
violated
conditions
employment
females
less
favorable
similarly
situated
males
congress
amended
title
vii
unambiguously
expressed
disapproval
holding
reasoning
gilbert
decision
incorporated
new
subsection
definitions
applicable
purposes
subchapter
supp
first
clause
act
quite
simply
terms
sex
basis
sex
include
limited
basis
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
house
report
stated
committee
view
dissenting
justices
correctly
interpreted
act
similarly
senate
report
quoted
passages
two
dissenting
opinions
stating
correctly
express
principle
meaning
title
vii
proponents
bill
repeatedly
emphasized
erroneously
interpreted
congressional
intent
amending
legislation
necessary
reestablish
principles
title
vii
law
understood
prior
gilbert
decision
many
expressly
agreed
views
dissenting
justices
petitioner
argues
congressional
discussion
focused
needs
female
members
work
force
rather
spouses
male
employees
create
negative
inference
limiting
scope
act
specific
problem
motivated
enactment
see
turkette
cf
mcdonald
santa
fe
trail
transp
congress
apparently
assumed
existing
plans
included
benefits
dependents
typically
provided
less
coverage
wives
male
employees
female
employees
question
differential
coverage
dependents
addressed
senate
report
committee
indicated
resolved
basis
existing
title
vii
principles
legislative
context
makes
clear
congress
thereby
referring
view
title
vii
reflected
gilbert
opinion
proponents
legislation
stressed
throughout
debates
congress
always
intended
protect
individuals
sex
discrimination
employment
including
limited
pregnant
women
workers
background
review
terms
amended
statute
decide
whether
petitioner
unlawfully
discriminated
male
employees
ii
section
makes
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
health
insurance
fringe
benefits
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
male
well
female
employees
protected
discrimination
thus
private
employer
provide
complete
health
insurance
coverage
dependents
female
employees
coverage
dependents
male
employees
violate
title
vii
practice
pass
simple
test
title
vii
discrimination
enunciated
los
angles
dept
water
power
manhart
treat
male
employee
dependents
manner
person
sex
different
result
reached
even
magnitude
discrimination
smaller
example
plan
provided
complete
hospitalization
coverage
spouses
female
employees
cover
spouses
male
employees
broken
bones
violate
title
vii
discriminating
male
employees
petitioner
practice
unlawful
plan
provides
limited
benefits
employees
wives
affords
extensive
coverage
employees
spouses
medical
conditions
requiring
hospitalization
thus
husbands
female
employees
receive
specified
level
hospitalization
coverage
conditions
wives
male
employees
receive
coverage
except
conditions
although
gilbert
concluded
otherwise
inclusive
plan
singled
benefits
exclusion
nondiscriminatory
face
women
become
pregnant
congress
unequivocally
rejected
reasoning
act
makes
clear
discriminatory
treat
conditions
less
favorably
medical
conditions
thus
petitioner
plan
unlawfully
gives
married
male
employees
benefit
package
dependents
less
inclusive
dependency
coverage
provided
married
female
employees
merit
petitioner
argument
prohibitions
title
vii
extend
discrimination
pregnant
spouses
statute
applies
discrimination
employment
analysis
demonstrates
fallacy
contention
pregnancy
discrimination
act
made
clear
title
vii
purposes
discrimination
based
woman
pregnancy
face
discrimination
sex
since
sex
spouse
always
opposite
sex
employee
follows
inexorably
discrimination
female
spouses
provision
fringe
benefits
also
discrimination
male
employees
cf
wengler
druggists
mutual
ins
making
clear
employer
discriminate
basis
employee
pregnancy
congress
erase
original
prohibition
discrimination
basis
employee
sex
short
congress
rejection
premises
general
electric
gilbert
forecloses
claim
insurance
program
excluding
pregnancy
coverage
female
beneficiaries
providing
complete
coverage
similarly
situated
male
beneficiaries
discriminate
basis
sex
petitioner
plan
mirror
image
plan
issue
gilbert
pregnancy
limitation
case
violates
title
vii
discriminating
male
employees
judgment
appeals
affirmed
footnotes
terms
sex
basis
sex
include
limited
basis
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
women
affected
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
shall
treated
purposes
including
receipt
benefits
fringe
benefit
programs
persons
affected
similar
ability
inability
work
nothing
section
title
shall
interpreted
permit
otherwise
supp
amendment
title
vii
became
effective
date
enactment
october
requirements
apply
fringe
benefit
program
days
enactment
april
stat
amendment
petitioner
plan
became
effective
april
first
day
following
three
months
continuous
service
every
active
production
maintenance
technical
clerical
area
bargaining
unit
employee
becomes
plan
participant
app
pet
cert
example
unmarried
children
age
college
students
solely
dependent
employee
certain
mentally
physically
handicapped
children
also
covered
amount
payable
plan
medical
expenses
incurred
dependent
however
take
account
amounts
payable
expenses
group
insurance
plans
employee
personal
coverage
affected
spouse
participation
group
health
plan
hospitalization
caused
uncomplicated
pregnancy
petitioner
plan
paid
reasonable
customary
physicians
charges
delivery
anesthesiology
hospital
charges
hospital
confinement
plan
paid
full
semiprivate
room
days
surgical
procedures
covered
first
reasonable
customary
charges
hospital
services
including
general
nursing
care
examinations
drugs
necessary
services
hospitalization
paid
charges
exceeding
services
maximum
days
question
see
differentiation
coverage
employee
termination
thus
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
found
investigation
record
reveals
present
disparate
impact
male
employees
genesis
distinction
accorded
female
employees
past
app
interim
interpretive
guidelines
published
comment
federal
register
march
fed
reg
final
guidelines
published
federal
register
april
eeoc
explained
commission
desire
interested
parties
made
aware
eeoc
view
rights
obligations
advance
april
may
compliance
date
questions
answers
reprinted
appendix
cfr
question
equally
clear
reads
must
employer
provide
level
health
insurance
coverage
medical
conditions
spouses
male
employees
provides
female
employees
necessary
provide
level
coverage
medical
conditions
spouses
male
employees
female
employees
however
employer
provides
coverage
medical
conditions
spouses
employees
level
coverage
medical
conditions
spouses
male
employees
must
level
coverage
medical
conditions
spouses
female
employees
example
employer
covers
employees
percent
reasonable
customary
expenses
sustained
medical
condition
covers
dependent
spouses
percent
reasonable
customary
expenses
medical
conditions
expenses
male
employee
spouse
must
covered
percent
level
fed
subsequently
appeals
seventh
circuit
agreed
ninth
circuit
eeoc
joslyn
mfg
supply
section
provides
pertinent
part
shall
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
fail
refuse
hire
discharge
individual
otherwise
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
true
women
become
pregnant
follow
every
legislative
classification
concerning
pregnancy
classification
like
considered
reed
reed
frontiero
richardson
normal
pregnancy
objectively
identifiable
physical
condition
unique
characteristics
absent
showing
distinctions
involving
pregnancy
mere
pretexts
designed
effect
invidious
discrimination
members
one
sex
lawmakers
constitutionally
free
include
exclude
pregnancy
coverage
legislation
reasonable
basis
respect
physical
condition
lack
identity
excluded
disability
gender
insurance
program
becomes
clear
upon
cursory
analysis
program
divides
potential
recipients
two
groups
pregnant
women
nonpregnant
persons
first
group
exclusively
female
second
includes
members
sexes
text
geduldig
opinion
makes
clear
evaluating
constitutionality
california
insurance
program
focused
character
state
legitimate
fiscal
interest
excluding
pregnancy
coverage
justification
relevant
statutory
issue
presented
gilbert
see
infra
meaning
first
clause
limited
specific
language
second
clause
explains
application
general
principle
women
employees
legislative
history
pregnancy
discrimination
act
committee
print
prepared
senate
committee
labor
human
resources
hereinafter
leg
pp
leg
bill
merely
reestablishing
law
understood
prior
gilbert
eeoc
lower
courts
supra
cong
rec
remarks
hawkins
really
add
anything
title
vii
believe
colleagues
congress
title
vii
enacted
amended
understood
prohibition
sex
discrimination
employment
seems
commonsense
since
women
become
pregnant
discrimination
pregnant
people
necessarily
discrimination
women
forbidding
discrimination
based
sex
therefore
clearly
forbids
discrimination
based
pregnancy
remarks
javits
bill
simply
corrective
legislation
designed
restore
law
respect
pregnant
women
employees
point
last
year
decision
gilbert
remarks
javits
leaving
situation
way
decided
gilbert
case
last
year
cong
rec
remarks
sarasin
bill
restore
interpretation
title
vii
prior
decision
statements
expressly
approving
views
dissenting
justices
pregnancy
discrimination
discrimination
basis
sex
see
leg
remarks
bayh
mar
cong
rec
remarks
hawkins
apr
cong
rec
remarks
javits
cong
rec
remarks
bayh
cong
rec
remarks
mathias
cong
rec
remarks
sarasin
july
cong
rec
see
also
discrimination
basis
pregnancy
hearings
subcommittee
labor
senate
committee
human
resources
statement
bayh
statement
assistant
attorney
general
civil
rights
drew
days
mcdonald
held
gives
persons
within
jurisdiction
right
every
state
territory
make
enforce
contracts
enjoyed
white
citizens
protects
whites
discrimination
basis
race
even
though
immediate
impetus
bill
necessity
relief
constitutionally
emancipated
former
negro
slaves
course
true
petitioner
plan
prior
enactment
statute
see
supra
see
supra
leg
presumably
plans
provide
comprehensive
medical
coverage
spouses
women
employees
spouses
male
employees
rare
aware
title
vii
litigation
concerning
plans
certainly
committee
desire
encourage
institution
plans
cong
rec
remarks
cranston
brief
respondent
questions
raised
committee
deliberations
regarding
bill
affect
medical
coverage
dependents
employees
opposed
employees
context
must
remembered
basic
purpose
bill
protect
women
employees
alter
basic
principles
title
vii
law
regards
sex
discrimination
rather
legislation
clarifies
definition
sex
discrimination
title
vii
purposes
therefore
question
regard
dependents
benefits
determined
basis
existing
title
vii
principles
supra
leg
statement
imply
new
statutory
definition
applicability
merely
acknowledges
new
definition
resolve
question
dissent
quotes
extensive
excerpts
exchange
senate
floor
senators
hatch
williams
post
taken
context
colloquy
clearly
deals
second
clause
bill
see
supra
senator
williams
principal
sponsor
legislation
addressed
bill
effect
income
maintenance
plans
leg
senator
williams
first
stated
response
senator
hatch
regard
maintenance
plans
disabilities
see
language
misunderstood
upon
inquiry
senator
hatch
replied
ambiguity
regard
income
maintenance
plans
see
end
response
stated
narrowly
drawn
give
employee
right
obtain
income
maintenance
result
pregnancy
someone
employee
ibid
comments
clearly
limited
scope
senator
williams
responses
omitted
dissent
lengthy
quotation
post
omitted
portions
colloquy
make
clear
logical
discuss
pregnancies
employees
spouses
connection
income
maintenance
plans
senator
hatch
asked
status
woman
coworker
pregnant
rides
pregnant
woman
get
work
pregnant
female
commences
maternity
leave
employed
mother
stays
home
nurse
pregnant
daughter
leg
reference
spouses
male
employees
must
understood
light
hypothetical
questions
seems
address
situation
male
employee
wishes
take
time
work
wife
pregnant
see
cong
rec
remarks
williams
ignored
congressional
intent
enacting
title
vii
civil
rights
act
intent
protect
individuals
unjust
employment
discrimination
including
pregnant
workers
light
statements
anomalous
hold
congress
provided
employee
pregnancy
spouse
pregnancy
course
senate
debate
pregnancy
discrimination
act
senator
bayh
senator
cranston
expressed
belief
new
act
prohibit
exclusion
pregnancy
coverage
spouses
spouses
otherwise
fully
covered
insurance
plan
see
holding
relies
legislation
extent
unequivocally
rejected
gilbert
decision
ultimately
rely
understanding
general
title
vii
principles
attach
significant
two
statements
many
comments
senators
congressmen
disapproving
reasoning
conclusion
gilbert
see
supra
consistently
since
eeoc
considered
unlawful
title
vii
employer
provide
different
insurance
coverage
spouses
male
female
employees
see
guidelines
discrimination
sex
cfr
commission
decision
cch
eeoc
decisions
accident
sickness
insurance
commission
decision
cch
eeoc
decisions
death
benefits
surviving
spouse
commission
decision
cch
eeoc
decisions
health
insurance
commission
decision
cch
eeoc
decisions
group
insurance
similarly
equal
protection
clause
cases
repeatedly
held
spouses
female
employees
receive
less
favorable
treatment
provision
benefits
practice
discriminates
spouses
also
female
employees
basis
sex
frontiero
richardson
opinion
brennan
increased
quarters
allowances
medical
dental
benefits
powell
concurring
judgment
weinberger
wiesenfeld
social
security
benefits
surviving
spouses
see
also
powell
concurring
califano
goldfarb
opinion
brennan
social
security
benefits
surviving
spouses
wengler
druggists
mutual
ins
workers
compensation
death
benefits
surviving
spouses
manhart
case
decided
several
months
pregnancy
discrimination
act
passed
although
expressly
discussed
legislative
history
set
forth
existing
title
vii
principles
congress
relied
cf
cannon
university
chicago
manhart
struck
employer
policy
requiring
female
employees
make
larger
contributions
pension
fund
male
employees
women
class
tend
live
longer
men
employment
practice
requires
individuals
contribute
money
fund
employees
simply
woman
rather
man
direct
conflict
language
policy
act
practice
pass
simple
test
whether
evidence
shows
treatment
person
manner
person
sex
different
constitutes
discrimination
unlawful
unless
exempted
equal
pay
act
affirmative
justification
policy
analogous
exclusion
broken
bones
wives
male
employees
except
employees
wives
employees
husbands
may
suffer
broken
bones
employees
wives
become
pregnant
see
supra
reasoning
require
medical
insurance
plan
treat
pregnancies
employees
wives
pregnancies
female
employees
example
eeoc
recognizes
see
supra
question
employer
might
provide
full
coverage
employees
coverage
dependents
similarly
disability
plan
covering
employees
children
may
exclude
limit
maternity
benefits
although
distinction
pregnancy
conditions
according
act
discrimination
basis
sex
exclusion
affects
male
female
employees
equally
since
may
pregnant
dependent
daughters
eeoc
guidelines
permit
differential
treatment
pregnancies
dependents
spouses
see
fed
reg
act
expressly
exclusion
pregnancy
coverage
discrimination
face
eliminates
need
consider
average
monetary
value
plan
coverage
male
female
employees
cf
gilbert
cost
providing
complete
health
insurance
coverage
dependents
male
employees
including
pregnant
wives
might
exceed
cost
providing
coverage
dependents
female
employees
although
type
cost
differential
may
properly
analyzed
passing
constitutionality
state
health
insurance
plan
see
geduldig
aiello
justification
recognized
title
vii
discrimination
shown
manhart
cfr
shall
defense
title
vii
charge
sex
discrimination
benefits
cost
benefits
greater
respect
one
sex
justice
rehnquist
justice
powell
joins
dissenting
general
electric
gilbert
held
exclusion
pregnancy
plan
discrimination
individual
sex
within
meaning
title
vii
civil
rights
act
stat
view
therefore
title
vii
violated
employer
disability
plan
provided
employees
nonoccupational
sickness
accident
benefits
excluded
plan
coverage
disabilities
arising
pregnancy
decision
gilbert
petitioner
otherwise
inclusive
benefits
plan
excludes
pregnancy
benefits
male
employee
spouse
clearly
violate
title
vii
different
result
obtain
gilbert
judicially
overruled
congress
legislatively
overrule
decision
entirety
amending
title
vii
today
purports
find
latter
relying
pregnancy
discrimination
act
pub
stat
supp
statute
plainly
speaks
female
employees
affected
pregnancy
says
nothing
spouses
male
employees
congress
course
free
legislatively
overrule
gilbert
whole
part
question
pregnancy
discrimination
act
manifests
congressional
dissatisfaction
result
reached
gilbert
think
reads
far
pregnancy
discrimination
act
congress
put
therefore
congress
overruling
gilbert
case
presenting
relatively
simple
question
statutory
construction
pays
virtually
attention
language
pregnancy
discrimination
act
legislative
history
pertaining
language
act
provides
relevant
part
terms
sex
basis
sex
include
limited
basis
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
women
affected
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
shall
treated
purposes
including
receipt
benefits
fringe
benefit
programs
persons
affected
similar
ability
inability
work
supp
shall
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
fail
refuse
hire
discharge
individual
otherwise
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
result
inadvertent
part
congress
made
evident
second
clause
act
language
essentially
ignores
opinion
congress
clause
explained
proscription
creating
saying
women
affected
pregnancy
shall
treated
persons
affected
similar
ability
inability
work
referring
female
employees
appeals
stands
alone
thinking
otherwise
concedes
correct
reading
second
clause
ante
apparent
effort
escape
impact
provision
asserts
meaning
first
clues
limited
specific
language
second
clause
ibid
disagree
conclusion
help
explained
definitional
provision
first
clues
inserted
says
thing
proscription
added
title
vii
applies
female
employees
plain
language
pregnancy
discrimination
act
leaves
little
room
conclusion
act
intended
extend
beyond
female
employees
concedes
congressional
discussion
focused
needs
female
members
work
force
rather
spouses
male
employees
ante
fact
singular
focus
discussion
problems
pregnant
worker
striking
introducing
senate
report
bill
later
became
pregnancy
discrimination
act
principal
sponsor
senator
williams
explained
decision
gilbert
case
legislation
necessary
provide
fundamental
protection
sex
discrimination
nation
million
working
women
protection
go
long
ways
toward
insuring
american
women
permitted
assume
rightful
place
nation
economy
addition
providing
protection
working
women
regard
fringe
benefit
programs
health
disability
insurance
programs
legislation
prohibit
employment
policies
adversely
affect
pregnant
workers
cong
rec
emphasis
added
trays
avoid
impact
legislative
history
saying
create
negative
inference
limiting
scope
act
specific
problem
motivated
enactment
ante
reasoning
might
force
legislative
history
silent
arguably
related
issue
legislative
history
silent
senate
report
provides
questions
raised
committee
deliberations
regarding
bill
affect
medical
coverage
dependents
employees
opposed
employees
context
must
remembered
basis
purposes
bill
protect
women
employees
alter
basic
principles
title
vii
law
regards
sex
discrimination
question
regard
dependent
benefits
determined
basis
existing
title
vii
principles
question
whether
employer
cover
dependents
either
without
additional
cost
employee
may
exclude
conditions
related
pregnancy
coverage
different
matter
presumably
plans
provide
comprehensive
medical
converge
spouses
women
employees
spouses
male
employees
rare
aware
title
vii
litigation
concerning
plans
certainly
committee
desire
encourage
institution
plans
plans
instituted
future
question
remain
whether
title
vii
affected
employees
discriminated
basis
sex
regards
extent
coverage
dependents
pp
leg
emphasis
added
hatch
phrase
women
affected
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
appears
overly
board
limited
terms
employment
even
require
person
affected
pregnant
indeed
present
language
bill
arguable
spouses
male
employees
covered
civil
rights
amendment
sponsors
clarify
exactly
phrase
intends
cover
williams
see
one
read
pregnancy
pregnancy
relates
employee
ambiguity
let
clear
precise
deals
woman
woman
employee
employee
work
situation
disabilities
covered
company
plan
provides
income
maintenance
event
medical
disability
particular
period
disability
work
childbirth
anything
related
childbirth
excluded
hatch
senator
satisfied
though
committee
language
brought
woman
affected
pregnancy
seems
ambiguous
means
act
applies
particular
woman
actually
pregnant
employee
become
pregnant
employment
williams
exactly
cong
rec
leg
emphasis
added
although
pregnancy
discrimination
act
clarified
meaning
certain
terms
section
neither
act
underlying
statute
contains
definition
word
discriminate
order
decide
whether
petitioner
plan
discriminates
male
employees
sex
must
therefore
go
beyond
bare
statutory
language
accordingly
shall
consider
whether
congress
enacting
pregnancy
discrimination
act
overturned
specific
holding
general
electric
gilbert
supra
also
rejected
test
discrimination
employed
case
believe
ante
crux
reasoning
even
though
pregnancy
discrimination
act
redefines
phrases
sex
basis
sex
include
discrimination
female
employees
affected
pregnancy
congress
also
expressed
view
gilbert
erroneously
interpreted
congressional
intent
ante
see
also
ante
somehow
concludes
renders
gilbert
obsolete
support
argument
points
passages
congressional
reports
several
statements
various
members
congress
tot
effect
gilbert
construed
title
vii
misperceived
intent
congress
ante
also
pints
members
congress
expressly
agreed
views
dissenting
justices
ante
certainly
various
members
congress
said
much
fact
remains
congress
body
expressed
sweeping
views
pregnancy
discrimination
act
decision
general
electric
gilbert
petitioner
exclusion
pregnancy
benefits
male
employees
spouses
violate
title
vii
since
nothing
pregnancy
discrimination
act
even
arguably
reaches
beyond
female
employees
affected
pregnancy
gilbert
requires
reverse
appeals
concludes
otherwise
dissent
gilbert
leave
open
possibility
violation
showing
distinction
involving
pregnancy
mere
pretexts
designed
effect
invidious
discrimination
members
one
sex
quoting
geduldig
aiello
referring
female
employees
intend
imply
pregnancy
discrimination
act
also
apply
female
applicants
employment
simply
used
former
reference
matter
convenience
see
eeoc
joslyn
mfg
supply
eeoc
lockheed
missiles
space
appeals
majority
responding
dissent
reliance
language
excused
import
language
saying
statutory
reference
ability
inability
work
denotes
disability
suggest
spouse
must
employee
employer
providing
coverage
fact
statute
says
persons
affected
say
employees
affected
conclusion
obviously
comport
understanding
language
logical
explanation
congress
reference
persons
rather
employees
congress
intended
amendment
also
apply
applicants
employment
reprinted
committee
print
prepared
senate
committee
labor
human
resources
legislative
history
pregnancy
discrimination
act
pp
hereinafter
referred
leg
foreword
official
printing
act
legislative
history
senator
williams
described
purpose
act
saying
act
provides
essential
protection
working
women
number
women
labor
force
increased
dramatically
recent
years
women
working
seeking
work
economic
need
support
families
expected
trend
increasing
participation
women
workforce
continue
future
increasing
proportion
working
women
mothers
essential
women
children
fully
protected
harmful
effects
unjust
employment
discrimination
basis
pregnancy
iii
see
cong
rec
leg
remarks
bayh
bill
help
provide
true
equality
working
women
nation
cong
rec
leg
remarks
williams
central
purpose
bill
require
women
workers
treated
equally
employees
basis
ability
inability
work
cong
rec
leg
remarks
javits
bill
represents
basis
fairness
women
employees
cong
rec
leg
remarks
sen
stafford
bill
end
major
source
discrimination
unjustly
afflicting
working
women
america
cong
rec
leg
remarks
green
bill
provide
rights
workingwomen
years
ago
cong
rec
leg
remarks
quie
bill
necessary
order
women
employees
enjoy
equal
treatment
fringe
benefit
programs
cong
rec
leg
remarks
akaka
bill
simply
requires
pregnant
workers
fairly
equally
treated
see
also
cong
rec
leg
remarks
brooke
cong
rec
leg
remarks
mathias
cong
rec
leg
remarks
kennedy
cong
rec
leg
remarks
biden
cong
rec
leg
remarks
cranston
cong
rec
leg
remarks
culver
cong
rec
leg
remarks
corrada
cong
rec
leg
remarks
hawkins
cong
rec
leg
remarks
sarasin
cong
rec
leg
remarks
chilsholm
cong
rec
leg
remarks
lafalce
cong
rec
leg
remarks
collins
cong
rec
leg
remarks
whalen
cong
rec
leg
remarks
burke
cong
leg
remarks
tsongas
see
report
senate
committee
human
resources
leg
report
house
committee
education
labor
leg
report
committee
conference
cong
leg
suggests
exchange
senator
williams
explaining
spouses
male
employees
put
income
maintenance
plans
pregnant
ante
utterly
illogical
spouses
employees
income
relevant
employer
maintained
senator
williams
clearly
says
act
limited
female
employees
employees
ensure
income
maintenance
male
employees
receive
similar
disability
benefits
senator
hatch
final
question
senator
williams
response
clearer
act
intended
affect
pregnant
workers
exactly
senate
report
said
senator
williams
confirmed
exactly
congress
intended
indications
arguably
contrary
views
reflected
senate
report
exchange
senator
hatch
williams
found
two
isolated
remarks
senators
bayh
cranston
cong
rec
leg
statements
however
concern
two
senators
views
concerning
title
vii
sex
discrimination
existed
prior
pregnancy
discrimination
act
conclusions
completely
odds
decision
general
electric
gilbert
entitled
deference
consistently
said
views
members
later
congress
concerning
different
unamended
sections
title
vii
entitled
little
weight
intent
congress
enacted
title
vii
controls
teamsters
see
also
southeastern
community
college
davis
also
concedes
one
point
senate
report
pregnancy
discrimination
act
acknowledges
new
definition
act
resolve
question
presented
case
ante