general
electric
gilbert
argued
october
decided
december
class
action
brought
respondents
challenging
violative
title
vii
civil
rights
act
disability
plan
petitioner
plan
petitioner
provides
nonoccupational
sickness
accident
benefits
employees
disabilities
arising
pregnancy
excluded
district
following
trial
held
exclusion
constituted
sex
discrimination
violation
title
vii
appeals
affirmed
finding
intervening
decision
geduldig
aiello
wherein
held
disparity
treatment
disabilities
sex
discrimination
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
applicable
title
vii
context
title
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
individual
sex
held
petitioner
disability
benefits
plan
violate
title
vii
failure
cover
disabilities
pp
plan
strikingly
similar
one
geduldig
exclude
anyone
benefit
eligibility
gender
merely
removes
one
physical
condition
pregnancy
list
compensable
disabilities
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
since
finding
discrimination
case
like
must
trigger
finding
unlawful
employment
practice
geduldig
precisely
point
holding
exclusion
pregnancy
disability
benefits
plan
like
petitioner
providing
general
coverage
discrimination
pp
showing
geduldig
exclusion
pregnancy
disability
benefits
petitioner
plan
pretext
discriminating
women
since
pregnancy
though
confined
women
ways
significantly
different
typical
covered
disease
disability
discrimination
result
simply
employer
disability
benefits
plan
less
petitioner
plan
insurance
package
covering
risks
excluding
others
showing
selection
included
risks
creates
discriminatory
effect
pp
guideline
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
eeoc
relied
upon
respondents
conflicts
earlier
eeoc
pronouncements
odds
consistent
interpretation
wage
hour
administrator
respect
title
vii
amended
equal
pay
act
legislative
history
title
vii
support
plain
meaning
language
used
congress
enacted
pp
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
burger
stewart
white
powell
joined
blackmun
joined
part
stewart
filed
concurring
statement
post
blackmun
filed
statement
concurring
part
post
brennan
filed
dissenting
opinion
marshall
joined
post
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
together
gilbert
et
al
general
electric
also
certiorari
see
post
theophil
kammholz
reargued
cause
briefs
stanley
strauss
john
battle
robert
brame
iii
ruth
weyand
reargued
cause
briefs
winn
newman
seymour
dubow
assistant
attorney
general
pottinger
argued
cause
et
al
reargument
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
brief
solicitor
general
bork
brian
landsberg
walter
barnett
abner
sibal
joseph
eddins
beatrice
rosenberg
linda
colvard
dorian
fn
fn
see
post
fn
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
gordon
dean
booth
alaska
airlines
et
al
edward
silver
larry
lavinsky
stephen
tisman
sara
portnoy
manuel
gorman
american
life
insurance
assn
et
al
joseph
king
american
society
personnel
administration
thompson
powers
american
telephone
telegraph
thornton
brooks
celanese
gerard
smetana
jerry
kronenberg
julian
schreiber
lawrence
kraus
richard
berman
chamber
commerce
kalvin
grove
lawrence
cohen
jeffrey
goldman
robert
penney
clem
kyle
liberty
mutual
insurance
richard
godown
national
association
manufacturers
lloyd
sutter
et
al
john
wayman
scott
zimmerman
walter
deforest
westinghouse
electric
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
william
brown
attorney
general
earl
manz
assistant
attorney
general
state
ohio
albert
woll
laurence
gold
stephen
schlossberg
john
fillion
american
federation
labor
congress
industrial
organizations
et
al
mary
jonathan
lubell
howard
ostrin
charles
koons
communications
workers
america
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
robert
mcclintock
school
district
city
ladue
thomas
emerson
ruth
bader
ginsberg
melvin
wulf
women
law
project
et
al
justice
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
petitioner
general
electric
provides
employees
disability
plan
pays
weekly
nonoccupational
sickness
accident
benefits
excluded
plan
coverage
however
disabilities
arising
pregnancy
respondents
behalf
class
women
employees
brought
action
seeking
inter
alia
declaration
exclusion
constitutes
sex
discrimination
violation
title
vii
civil
rights
act
stat
amended
et
seq
district
eastern
district
virginia
following
trial
merits
held
exclusion
disability
benefits
general
electric
employee
disability
plan
violated
title
vii
supp
appeals
affirmed
granted
certiorari
reverse
part
total
compensation
package
general
electric
provides
nonoccupational
sickness
accident
benefits
employees
weekly
sickness
accident
insurance
plan
plan
amount
equal
employee
normal
weekly
earnings
payments
paid
employees
become
totally
disabled
result
nonoccupational
sickness
accident
benefit
payments
normally
start
eighth
day
employee
total
disability
although
employee
earlier
confined
hospital
bed
patient
benefit
payments
start
immediately
continue
maximum
weeks
one
continuous
period
disability
successive
periods
disability
due
related
causes
individual
named
respondents
present
former
hourly
paid
production
employees
general
electric
plant
salem
employees
pregnant
employed
general
electric
presented
claim
company
disability
benefits
plan
cover
period
absent
work
result
pregnancy
claims
routinely
denied
ground
plan
provide
payments
absence
due
pregnancy
respondents
thereafter
filed
charges
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
eeoc
alleging
refusal
general
electric
pay
disability
benefits
plan
time
lost
due
pregnancy
childbirth
discriminated
sex
upon
waiting
requisite
number
days
instant
action
commenced
district
complaint
asserted
violation
title
vii
damages
sought
well
injunction
directing
general
electric
include
pregnancy
disabilities
within
plan
terms
conditions
nonoccupational
disabilities
following
trial
district
made
findings
fact
conclusions
law
entered
order
determined
general
electric
excluding
pregnancy
disabilities
coverage
plan
engaged
sex
discrimination
violation
title
vii
district
found
normal
pregnancy
necessarily
either
disease
accident
disabling
period
six
eight
weeks
approximately
en
per
cent
pregnancies
terminated
miscarriage
disabling
approximately
pregnancies
complicated
diseases
may
lead
additional
disability
district
noted
evidence
introduced
trial
good
deal
stipulated
concerning
relative
cost
general
electric
providing
benefits
plan
male
female
employees
indicated
disabilities
excluded
cost
plan
general
electric
per
female
employee
least
high
substantially
higher
cost
per
male
employee
district
found
inclusion
disabilities
within
scope
plan
increase
disability
benefits
plan
costs
amount
though
large
time
undeterminable
district
declined
find
present
actuarial
value
coverage
equal
men
women
went
decide
even
found
economic
equivalence
finding
case
justified
exclusion
disabilities
otherwise
comprehensive
nonoccupational
sickness
accident
disability
plan
regardless
whether
cost
including
benefits
might
make
plan
costly
women
men
district
determined
title
vii
intends
sexually
equalize
employment
opportunity
must
one
exception
cost
differential
defense
ultimate
conclusion
district
petitioner
discriminated
basis
sex
operation
disability
program
violation
title
vii
order
entered
enjoining
petitioner
continuing
exclude
disabilities
coverage
plan
providing
future
award
monetary
relief
individual
members
class
affected
petitioner
appealed
appeals
fourth
circuit
divided
vote
affirmed
judgment
district
date
district
judgment
rendered
time
case
decided
appeals
decided
geduldig
aiello
rejected
claim
similar
disability
program
established
california
law
violated
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
plan
exclusion
pregnancy
disabilities
represented
sex
discrimination
majority
appeals
felt
geduldig
controlling
arose
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
title
vii
dissenting
opinion
disagreed
majority
impact
geduldig
granted
certiorari
consider
important
issue
construction
title
vii
ii
section
provides
relevant
part
shall
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
rejected
appellee
equal
protection
challenge
statutory
scheme
first
noted
agree
exclusion
disability
coverage
amounts
invidious
discrimination
equal
protection
clause
california
discriminate
respect
persons
groups
eligible
disability
insurance
protection
program
classification
challenged
case
relates
asserted
underinclusiveness
set
risks
state
selected
insure
case
thus
far
cry
cases
like
reed
reed
frontiero
richardson
involving
discrimination
based
upon
gender
california
insurance
program
exclude
anyone
benefit
eligibility
gender
merely
removes
one
physical
condition
pregnancy
list
compensable
disabilities
true
women
become
pregnant
follow
every
legislative
classification
concerning
pregnancy
classification
like
considered
reed
supra
frontiero
supra
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
recognized
geduldig
course
fact
discrimination
end
analysis
shown
distinctions
involving
pregnancy
mere
pretexts
designed
effect
invidious
discrimination
members
one
sex
ibid
noted
semblance
showing
made
evidence
record
selection
risks
insured
program
worked
discriminate
definable
group
class
terms
aggregate
risk
protection
derived
group
class
program
risk
men
protected
women
likewise
risk
women
protected
men
appeals
therefore
wrong
concluding
reasoning
geduldig
applicable
action
title
vii
since
finding
discrimination
must
trigger
case
finding
unlawful
employment
practice
geduldig
precisely
point
holding
exclusion
pregnancy
plan
providing
general
coverage
discrimination
showing
case
geduldig
exclusion
pregnancy
benefits
mere
pretex
designed
effect
invidious
discrimination
members
one
sex
appeals
expressed
view
decision
geduldig
actually
turned
whether
conceded
discrimination
invidious
think
misread
quoted
language
opinion
noted
opinion
distinction
face
sex
related
might
nonetheless
violate
equal
protection
clause
fact
subterfuge
accomplish
forbidden
discrimination
question
excluding
disease
disability
comparable
respects
covered
diseases
disabilities
yet
confined
members
one
race
sex
pregnancy
course
confined
women
ways
significantly
different
typical
covered
disease
disability
district
found
disease
often
voluntarily
undertaken
desired
condition
therefore
infer
exclusion
pregnancy
disability
benefits
petitioner
plan
simple
pretext
discriminating
women
contrary
arguments
adopted
lower
courts
expounded
dissenting
brethren
largely
rejected
geduldig
instant
suit
grounded
title
vii
rather
equal
protection
clause
cases
recognize
prima
facie
violation
title
vii
established
circumstances
upon
proof
effect
otherwise
facially
neutral
plan
classification
discriminate
members
one
class
another
see
washington
davis
example
context
challenge
provisions
facially
neutral
employment
test
held
prima
facie
case
discrimination
established
even
absent
proof
intent
consequences
test
invidiously
discriminate
basis
racial
impermissible
classification
griggs
duke
power
even
assuming
necessary
case
prove
intent
establish
prima
facie
violation
cf
mcdonnell
douglas
green
respondents
made
requisite
showing
effects
geduldig
respondents
attempted
meet
burden
demonstrating
discriminatory
effect
resulting
exclusion
disabilities
coverage
whatever
ultimate
probative
value
evidence
introduced
district
subject
instant
case
least
tended
illustrate
selection
risks
covered
plan
operate
fact
discriminate
women
geduldig
start
indisputable
baseline
fiscal
actuarial
benefits
program
accrue
members
sexes
need
disturb
findings
district
note
neither
finding
evidence
support
finding
financial
benefits
plan
worked
discriminate
definable
group
class
terms
aggregate
risk
protection
derived
group
class
program
plan
effect
appears
nothing
insurance
package
covers
risks
excludes
others
see
package
going
relevant
identifiable
groups
presently
concerned
general
electric
male
female
employees
covers
exactly
categories
risk
facially
nondiscriminatory
sense
risk
men
protected
women
likewise
risk
women
protected
men
proof
package
fact
worth
men
women
impossible
find
discriminatory
effect
scheme
simply
women
disabled
result
pregnancy
receive
benefits
say
discrimination
result
simply
employer
plan
less
appears
disabilities
constitute
additional
risk
unique
women
failure
compensate
risk
destroy
presumed
parity
benefits
accruing
men
women
alike
results
facially
evenhanded
inclusion
risks
hold
otherwise
endanger
commonsense
notion
employer
disability
benefits
program
violate
title
vii
even
though
underinclusion
risks
impacts
result
disabilities
heavily
upon
one
gender
upon
facial
discrimination
case
none
iii
told
however
analysis
congressional
purpose
underlying
title
vii
inconsistent
guidelines
eeoc
asserted
entitled
great
deference
construction
act
griggs
phillips
martin
marietta
marshall
concurring
guideline
upon
respondents
rely
heavily
promulgated
pertinent
part
disabilities
caused
contributed
pregnancy
miscarriage
abortion
childbirth
recovery
therefrom
purposes
temporary
disabilities
treated
health
temporary
disability
insurance
sick
leave
plan
available
connection
employment
benefits
shall
applied
disability
due
pregnancy
childbirth
terms
conditions
applied
temporary
disabilities
cfr
consider
rulings
interpretations
opinions
administrator
act
controlling
upon
courts
reason
authority
constitute
body
experience
informed
judgment
courts
litigants
may
properly
resort
guidance
weight
judgment
particular
case
depend
upon
thoroughness
evident
consideration
validity
reasoning
consistency
earlier
later
pronouncements
factors
give
power
persuade
lacking
power
control
requested
opinion
whether
exclusion
pregnancy
childbirth
disability
salary
continuation
plan
violation
title
vii
civil
rights
act
recent
opinion
letter
regarding
pregnancy
stated
commission
policy
area
seek
compare
employer
treatment
illness
injury
treatment
maternity
since
maternity
temporary
disability
unique
female
sex
less
anticipated
working
life
women
employees
therefore
opinion
according
facts
stated
company
group
insurance
program
covers
hospital
medical
expenses
delivery
employees
children
excludes
salary
continuation
program
disabilities
result
pregnancy
childbirth
violation
title
vii
app
declined
follow
administrative
guidelines
past
conflicted
earlier
pronouncements
agency
housing
foundation
forman
espinoza
farah
mfg
supra
short
wholly
discount
weight
given
guideline
receive
high
marks
judged
standards
enunciated
skidmore
supra
also
persuasive
indications
recent
eeoc
guideline
sharply
conflicts
indicia
proper
interpretation
provisions
title
vii
legislative
history
title
vii
prohibition
sex
discrimination
notable
primarily
brevity
even
however
congress
paid
especial
attention
provisions
equal
pay
act
amended
title
vii
adding
following
sentence
shall
unlawful
employment
practice
subchapter
employer
differentiate
upon
basis
sex
determining
amount
wages
compensation
paid
paid
employees
employer
differentiation
authorized
provisions
section
title
employer
contributions
plan
providing
insurance
similar
benefits
employees
equal
men
women
wage
differential
prohibited
equal
pay
provisions
result
payments
even
though
benefits
accrue
employees
question
greater
one
sex
mere
fact
employer
may
make
unequal
contributions
employees
opposite
sexes
situation
however
considered
indicate
employer
payments
violation
section
resulting
benefits
equal
employees
cfr
reduced
total
abdication
construing
statute
eeoc
guideline
conflicting
earlier
pronouncements
agency
containing
suggestion
new
source
legislative
history
discovered
intervening
eight
years
stands
virtually
alone
contrary
consistent
interpretation
wage
hour
administrator
quoted
language
senator
humphrey
floor
manager
title
vii
senate
support
seems
us
plain
meaning
language
used
congress
enacted
concept
discrimination
course
well
known
time
enactment
title
vii
associated
fourteenth
amendment
nearly
century
carrying
long
history
judicial
construction
congress
makes
unlawful
employer
discriminate
sex
without
explanation
meaning
readily
infer
meant
something
different
concept
discrimination
traditionally
meant
cf
morton
mancari
ozawa
surely
reason
inference
see
gemsco
walling
therefore
agree
petitioner
plan
violate
title
vii
failure
cover
disabilities
judgment
appeals
reversed
footnotes
respondents
also
represent
class
women
employees
denied
benefits
since
september
seek
damages
arising
denial
respect
plan
general
electric
effect
general
electric
obtained
employees
outside
california
insurance
policy
metropolitan
life
insurance
policy
involves
payment
tentative
premium
subject
adjustment
light
actual
experience
pretrial
stipulation
facts
app
effect
therefore
metropolitan
life
insurance
used
provide
administrative
service
processing
claims
general
electric
remains
practical
purposes
additionally
benefit
payment
coverage
plan
disabilities
whether
related
pregnancy
terminates
date
cease
active
work
total
disability
pregnancy
except
entitled
weekly
benefits
disability
existing
date
cessation
benefit
payments
continued
accordance
provisions
plan
cases
personal
leave
layoff
strike
however
coverage
future
nonoccupational
sickness
accident
disability
continued
days
ibid
case
respondent
emma
furch
took
pregnancy
leave
april
hospitalized
pulmonary
embolism
april
claim
filed
disability
benefits
plan
solely
period
absence
due
pulmonary
embolism
claim
rejected
since
benefits
discontinued
accordance
provisions
general
electric
insurance
plan
plaintiffs
action
seven
female
employees
international
union
electrical
radio
machine
workers
iue
latter
affiliate
local
joint
representative
iue
hourly
paid
production
maintenance
employees
general
electric
salem
plant
district
made
following
specific
findings
pregnancy
perhaps
often
voluntary
substantial
incidence
negligent
accidental
conception
also
occurs
pregnancy
per
se
disease
pregnancy
without
complications
normally
disabling
period
six
eight
weeks
time
includes
period
labor
delivery
slightly
several
weeks
recuperation
supp
ibid
five
percent
pregnancies
complicated
diseases
found
nonpregnant
persons
may
stimulated
pregnancy
five
percent
pregnancies
complicated
diseases
complications
diseases
may
lead
disability
ibid
district
included
opinion
following
charts
stipulation
dated
july
ge
experience
sex
respect
claims
weekly
sickness
accident
disability
insurance
coverage
follows
male
female
ge
experience
sex
respect
claims
weekly
sickness
accident
disability
insurance
coverage
follows
male
female
ibid
trial
general
electric
introduced
addition
material
cited
supra
testimony
paul
jackson
actuary
calculated
plan
presently
costs
females
males
present
plan
objectionable
excludes
coverage
unique
disability
affects
members
female
sex
suggestion
made
exclude
disabilities
said
affect
males
additionally
gives
weight
suggestion
actuarial
value
coverage
provided
equalized
men
women
defenses
must
bottomed
evidence
regard
lacking
whatever
inferences
may
suggested
statistical
data
presented
simply
presume
draw
precise
conclusions
actuarial
value
coverage
provided
present
plan
effect
including
pregnancy
related
disabilities
basis
limited
data
noted
supra
joint
petition
respondents
presented
several
additional
questions
merit
treatment
opinion
concluded
without
merit
subsection
provides
shall
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
limit
segregate
classify
employees
way
deprive
tend
deprive
individual
employment
opportunities
otherwise
adversely
affect
status
employee
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
respondents
seek
establish
discrimination
traditional
civil
litigation
burden
establishing
acts
complain
constituted
discrimination
violation
title
vii
albemarle
paper
moody
mcdonnell
douglas
green
griggs
burden
placed
employer
showing
given
requirement
must
manifest
relationship
employment
question
arise
discriminatory
effect
shown
albemarle
supra
absent
showing
discrimination
term
defined
geduldig
showing
effect
violation
general
electric
change
fact
effect
acting
insurer
state
california
acting
geduldig
absent
proof
different
values
cost
insure
risks
essence
nothing
extra
compensation
employees
form
fringe
benefits
employer
remove
insurance
fringe
benefits
instead
increase
wages
amount
equal
cost
insurance
clearly
discrimination
even
though
female
employee
wished
purchase
disability
insurance
covered
risks
pay
male
employee
purchased
identical
disability
insurance
due
fact
insurance
cover
extra
disabilities
due
pregnancy
respondents
seem
acknowledge
failure
provide
benefit
plan
constitute
discrimination
violation
title
vii
see
infra
illogically
also
suggest
present
scheme
violate
title
vii
female
must
spend
money
buy
personal
disability
policy
covering
pregnancy
disability
wants
fully
insured
period
disability
without
income
whereas
male
without
extra
expenditure
fully
insured
ge
every
period
disability
supplemental
brief
respondents
reargument
yet
cases
instant
case
case
disability
coverage
ultimate
result
woman
wished
fully
insured
pay
incremental
amount
male
counterpart
due
solely
possibility
disabilities
title
vii
proscription
discrimination
either
case
require
employer
pay
incremental
amount
district
wrong
assuming
title
vii
ban
employment
discrimination
necessarily
means
greater
economic
benefit
must
required
paid
one
sex
differing
roles
scheme
human
existence
respondents
tacitly
admit
situation
violate
title
vii
acknowledge
ge
obligation
establish
fringe
benefit
program
brief
respondents
moreover
difficulty
contention
general
electric
engaged
impermissible
sex
discrimination
vividly
portrayed
closing
suggestion
paying
pregnancy
discriminates
within
sphere
classification
sex
failure
pay
response
respondents
reply
brief
petitioner
reargument
statement
converse
indicate
perceiving
issue
terms
sex
discrimination
quickly
places
resolution
issue
situation
see
also
supplemental
brief
respondents
reargument
believe
imposing
employees
either
unequal
costs
benefits
equal
unequal
benefits
costs
equal
violates
right
individual
employee
treated
equally
individual
employee
opposite
sex
troublesome
interpretative
problems
reinforce
belief
congress
prohibiting
discrimination
title
vii
intend
depart
longstanding
meaning
discrimination
cf
jefferson
hackney
regulation
cited
respondents
cfr
simply
restates
statutory
proposition
unlawful
employment
practice
discriminate
men
women
regard
fringe
benefits
eeoc
given
authority
time
time
issue
suitable
procedural
regulations
carry
provisions
subchapter
one
contends
however
regulation
procedural
nature
effect
section
equal
pay
act
provides
pertinent
part
employer
employees
subject
provisions
section
shall
discriminate
within
establishment
employees
employed
employees
basis
sex
paying
wages
employees
establishment
rate
less
rate
pays
wages
employees
opposite
sex
establishment
equal
work
jobs
performance
requires
equal
skill
effort
responsibility
performed
similar
working
conditions
except
payment
made
pursuant
seniority
system
ii
merit
system
iii
system
measures
earnings
quantity
quality
production
iv
differential
based
factor
sex
mr
join
opinion
holding
general
electric
exclusion
benefits
disability
pregnancy
per
se
violation
title
vii
respondents
failed
prove
discriminatory
effect
unlike
brother
blackmun
understand
opinion
question
either
griggs
duke
power
specifically
significance
generally
proving
discriminatory
effect
title
vii
case
justice
blackmun
concurring
part
join
judgment
concur
opinion
insofar
holds
general
electric
exclusion
disability
due
pregnancy
per
se
violation
title
vii
plaintiffs
case
therefore
least
burden
proving
discriminatory
effect
failed
proof
join
inference
suggestion
opinion
inference
suggestion
effect
may
never
controlling
factor
title
vii
case
griggs
duke
power
longer
good
law
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
concurs
dissenting
holds
today
without
violating
title
vii
civil
rights
act
et
private
employer
may
adopt
disability
plan
compensates
employees
temporary
disabilities
except
one
affecting
exclusively
women
pregnancy
respectfully
dissent
today
holding
repudiates
applicable
administrative
guideline
promulgated
agency
charged
congress
implementation
act
also
rejects
unanimous
conclusion
six
courts
appeals
addressed
question
see
communications
workers
american
tel
cert
pending
wetzel
liberty
mut
ins
vacated
jurisdictional
grounds
gilbert
general
electric
case
tyler
vickery
satty
nashville
gas
cert
pending
hutchison
lake
oswego
school
dist
cert
pending
case
unusual
presents
question
resolution
first
glance
turns
largely
upon
conceptual
framework
chosen
identify
describe
operational
features
challenged
disability
program
directing
focus
upon
risks
excluded
otherwise
comprehensive
program
upon
purported
justifications
exclusions
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
women
plaintiffs
lower
courts
reason
pregnancy
exclusion
constitutes
prima
facie
violation
title
vii
violation
triggered
argue
omission
pregnancy
program
intent
effect
providing
women
subjected
substantial
risk
total
loss
income
temporary
medical
disability
brief
eeoc
amicus
curiae
framework
diametrically
different
views
general
electric
plan
representing
assignment
risks
accordance
normal
actuarial
techniques
perspective
lone
exclusion
pregnancy
violation
title
vii
insofar
disabilities
mutually
covered
sexes
reasoning
relies
primarily
upon
descriptive
statement
borrowed
geduldig
aiello
risk
men
protected
women
likewise
risk
women
protected
men
ante
according
assertedly
neutral
sorting
process
precludes
pregnancy
omission
constituting
violation
title
vii
presumably
either
conceptual
framework
appropriate
mean
inquiry
necessary
select
accurate
realistic
analytical
approach
outset
soundness
underlying
assumption
plan
untainted
product
process
examined
historical
backdrop
general
electric
employment
practices
existence
nonexistence
policies
governing
inclusion
compensable
risks
secondly
resulting
pattern
risks
insured
general
electric
evaluated
terms
broad
social
objectives
promoted
title
vii
believe
first
inquiry
compels
conclusion
assumption
general
electric
engaged
process
purely
fanciful
second
demonstrates
eeoc
interpretation
exclusion
pregnancy
disability
insurance
plan
incompatible
overall
objectives
title
vii
unjustifiably
rejected
ii
geduldig
aiello
supra
purports
starting
point
analysis
disability
insurance
system
containing
pregnancy
exclusion
held
violate
equal
protection
clause
although
quotes
primarily
one
opinion
length
ante
finally
grapple
geduldig
terms
considered
favorably
view
geduldig
established
proposition
pregnancy
classification
standing
alone
said
fall
category
classifications
rest
explicitly
gender
beyond
geduldig
offers
little
analysis
helpful
decision
case
surely
offends
common
sense
suggest
ante
classification
revolving
around
pregnancy
minimum
strongly
sex
related
see
cleveland
board
education
lafleur
powell
concurring
indeed
even
insurance
context
neutral
actuarial
principles
found
provided
legitimate
independent
input
decisionmaking
process
geduldig
outcome
qualified
explicit
reservation
case
demonstrated
differentiation
used
mere
pretext
designed
effect
invidious
discrimination
members
one
sex
thus
geduldig
obliges
determine
whether
exclusion
disability
universe
compensable
disabilities
actually
product
neutral
persuasive
actuarial
considerations
rather
stemmed
policy
purposefully
downgraded
women
role
labor
force
geduldig
inquiry
coupled
normal
presumption
favoring
legislative
action
satisfied
pregnancy
exclusion
fact
prompted
california
legitimate
fiscal
concerns
therefore
california
deny
equal
protection
effectuating
reforms
one
step
time
record
case
makes
deference
impossible
instead
reaching
conclusion
showing
purposeful
discrimination
made
ante
simply
disregards
history
general
electric
practices
served
undercut
employment
opportunities
women
become
pregnant
employed
moreover
studiously
ignores
undisturbed
conclusion
district
general
electric
discriminatory
attitude
toward
women
motivating
factor
policy
supp
ed
pregnancy
exclusion
neutral
neither
face
intent
plainly
appraisal
general
electric
policy
neutral
process
sorting
risks
discrimination
ante
easily
squared
historical
record
case
therefore
proceeds
discussion
purported
neutral
criteria
suffice
explain
lone
exclusion
pregnancy
program
argues
pregnancy
comparable
disabilities
since
voluntary
condition
rather
disease
ibid
fallacy
argument
even
disease
construed
operational
criteria
inclusion
disability
general
electric
program
application
criteria
inconsistent
interpretation
company
policy
example
characterization
pregnancy
voluntary
persuasive
factor
appeals
correctly
noted
childbirth
disability
general
electric
never
construed
plan
eliminating
voluntary
disabilities
including
sport
injuries
attempted
suicides
venereal
disease
disabilities
incurred
commission
crime
fight
elective
cosmetic
surgery
similarly
label
disease
rather
disability
deemed
determinative
since
general
electric
pregnancy
disqualification
also
excludes
pregnancies
end
debilitating
miscarriages
cases
pregnancies
complicated
diseases
intuitive
sense
word
cases
women
recovering
childbirth
stricken
severe
diseases
unrelated
pregnancy
moreover
even
principal
argument
plan
supposed
gender
neutrality
withstand
analysis
central
analytical
framework
relied
upon
demonstrate
absence
discrimination
principle
described
geduldig
risk
men
protected
women
risk
women
protected
men
quoted
ante
fostering
impression
faced
mere
underinclusive
assignment
risks
fashion
disabilities
insured
irrespective
gender
analysis
proves
simplistic
misleading
although
mutually
contractible
risks
covered
irrespective
gender
see
supra
plan
also
insures
risks
prostatectomies
vasectomies
circumcisions
specific
reproductive
system
men
exist
female
counterparts
covered
plan
pregnancy
affords
disability
otherwise
excluded
coverage
accordingly
district
appropriately
remarked
concern
defendants
reference
pregnancy
risks
coupled
apparent
lack
concern
regarding
balancing
statistically
disabilities
buttresses
conclusion
discriminatory
attitude
characterized
elsewhere
findings
fact
motivating
factor
policy
decision
case
therefore
turns
upon
acceptance
view
general
electric
disability
plan
assignment
risks
plaintiffs
perception
plan
process
expressive
secondary
status
women
company
labor
force
history
general
electric
employment
practices
absence
definable
sorting
criteria
plan
warrant
rejection
view
deference
plaintiffs
indeed
fact
frame
reference
lends
intentional
decisionmaking
makes
clear
wisdom
propriety
eeoc
contrary
approach
employment
disability
programs
iii
course
demonstration
purposeful
discrimination
ground
recovery
title
vii
notwithstanding
unexplained
inexplicable
implications
contrary
majority
opinion
see
washington
davis
albemarle
paper
moody
mcdonnell
douglas
green
griggs
duke
power
every
appeals
firmly
settled
prima
facie
violation
title
vii
whether
also
established
demonstrating
facially
neutral
classification
effect
discriminating
members
defined
class
general
electric
disability
program
three
divisible
sets
effects
first
plan
covers
disabilities
mutually
afflict
sexes
see
supra
second
plan
insures
disabilities
predominant
impact
males
finally
disabilities
covered
except
prevalent
pregnancy
focuses
first
factor
equal
inclusion
mutual
risks
therefore
understandably
identify
discriminatory
effect
arising
plan
contrast
eeoc
plaintiffs
rely
upon
unequal
exclusion
manifested
effects
two
three
pinpoint
adverse
impact
women
however
one
defines
profile
risks
protected
general
electric
determinative
question
must
whether
social
policies
aims
furthered
title
vii
filtered
phrase
discriminate
contained
fairly
forbid
ultimate
pattern
coverage
insures
risks
except
commonplace
one
applicable
women
men
matter
law
policy
paradigm
example
type
complex
economic
social
inquiry
congress
wisely
left
resolution
eeoc
pursuant
title
vii
mandate
see
accordingly
prior
title
vii
decisions
consistently
acknowledged
unique
persuasiveness
eeoc
interpretations
area
prior
decisions
rather
providing
merely
commission
guidelines
entitled
consideration
allows
ante
hold
eeoc
interpretations
receive
great
deference
albemarle
paper
moody
supra
griggs
duke
power
supra
phillips
martin
marietta
marshall
concurring
nonetheless
today
abandons
standard
order
squarely
repudiate
commission
guideline
providing
isabilities
caused
contributed
pregnancy
purposes
temporary
disabilities
health
temporary
disability
insurance
sick
leave
plan
cfr
rejection
attributed
two
interrelated
events
delay
title
vii
enactment
promulgation
commission
guideline
interim
letters
eeoc
general
counsel
expressing
view
pregnancy
necessarily
includable
compensable
disability
neither
event
supports
refusal
accord
great
deference
eeoc
interpretation
true
noted
ante
brief
mention
sex
discrimination
appears
early
legislative
history
title
vii
surprising
therefore
eeoc
charged
fresh
uncharted
mandate
candidly
acknowledged
study
required
contours
sex
discrimination
proscribed
congress
defined
see
fed
reg
although
proceeding
cautiously
commission
outset
acknowledged
relationship
sex
discrimination
pregnancy
announcing
policies
devised
afforded
female
employees
reasonable
job
protection
periods
pregnancy
eeoc
first
annual
report
congress
fiscal
year
succeeding
seven
years
eeoc
worked
develop
coherent
policy
toward
employment
practices
pursuit
normal
adjudicatory
functions
engaging
comprehensive
studies
organizations
president
citizens
advisory
council
status
women
see
address
jacqueline
gutwillig
chairwoman
citizens
advisory
council
cited
app
investigations
role
pregnancy
labor
market
coupled
commission
review
case
decisions
maternity
preparatory
issuing
formal
guidelines
culminated
guideline
agency
first
formalized
systematic
statement
employment
policies
relating
pregnancy
childbirth
therefore
eight
years
elapsed
prior
issuance
guideline
earlier
opinion
letters
refused
impose
liability
employers
period
deliberation
one
deny
final
eeoc
determination
followed
thorough
consideration
indeed
realistically
viewed
extended
evaluation
admittedly
complex
problem
unwillingness
impose
additional
potentially
premature
costs
employers
decisionmaking
stages
perceived
practice
commended
bitter
irony
care
preceded
promulgation
guideline
today
condemned
tardy
indecisiveness
unwillingness
irresponsibly
challenge
employers
practices
formative
period
labeled
evidence
inconsistency
indecisiveness
inconsistency
bootstrapped
reasons
denying
commission
interpretation
due
deference
guideline
represents
particularly
conscientious
reasonable
product
eeoc
deliberations
therefore
merits
great
deference
certainly
find
basis
concluding
guideline
step
congressional
intent
see
espinoza
farah
mfg
contrary
prior
congress
enacted
rule
govern
distribution
benefits
sickness
railroad
unemployment
insurance
act
furthermore
shortly
following
announcement
eeoc
rule
congress
approved
president
signed
essentially
identical
promulgation
department
health
education
welfare
title
ix
education
amendments
supp
see
cfr
moreover
federal
workers
subject
jurisdiction
civil
service
commission
eligible
maternity
pregnancy
coverage
sick
leave
program
see
federal
personnel
manual
ch
subch
fpm
supp
may
policy
formulations
reasonable
responses
uniform
testimony
governmental
investigations
show
pregnancy
exclusions
built
disability
programs
financially
burden
women
workers
act
break
continuity
employment
relationship
thereby
exacerbating
women
comparatively
transient
role
labor
force
see
dept
commerce
consumer
income
series
july
women
bureau
dept
labor
underutilization
women
workers
rev
ed
dictating
pregnancy
coverage
title
vii
eeoc
guideline
merely
settled
upon
solution
accepted
every
western
industrial
country
dept
health
education
welfare
social
security
programs
throughout
world
pp
ix
xviii
xix
research
report
find
difficult
comprehend
construction
anything
sufficiently
reasonable
one
accepted
reviewing
courts
train
natural
resources
def
council
belief
concept
discrimination
reach
disability
policies
effecting
additional
risk
unique
women
ante
plainly
step
decision
three
terms
ago
lau
nichols
interpreting
another
provision
civil
rights
act
unanimous
recognized
discrimination
social
phenomenon
encased
social
context
therefore
unavoidably
takes
meaning
desired
end
products
relevant
legislative
enactment
end
products
may
demand
due
consideration
uniqueness
disadvantaged
individuals
realistic
understanding
conditions
found
today
labor
environment
warrants
taking
pregnancy
account
fashioning
disability
policies
unlike
hypothetical
situations
conjectured
ante
contemporary
disability
programs
creatures
social
cultural
vacuum
devoid
stereotypes
signals
concerning
pregnant
woman
employee
indeed
one
seriously
contends
general
electric
companies
actually
conceptualized
developed
comprehensive
insurance
programs
strictly
fashion
instead
company
devised
policy
pregnancy
offers
protection
risks
even
unique
men
heavily
male
dominated
light
social
experience
history
general
electric
employment
practices
otherwise
design
disability
program
burdened
role
contemporary
working
woman
eeoc
construction
sex
discrimination
fully
consonant
ultimate
objective
title
vii
assure
equality
employment
opportunities
eliminate
discriminatory
practices
devices
fostered
sexually
stratified
job
environments
disadvantage
women
mcdonnell
douglas
green
affirm
judgment
appeals
general
electric
disability
program
developed
earlier
era
women
openly
presumed
play
minor
temporary
role
labor
force
originally
conceived
general
electric
offered
benefit
plan
female
employees
women
recognize
responsibilities
life
probably
hoping
get
married
soon
leave
company
app
excerpted
loth
swope
story
gerard
swope
general
electric
american
business
company
made
female
employees
eligible
participate
disability
program
common
general
business
practice
however
general
electric
continued
pursue
policy
taking
pregnancy
factors
account
order
scale
women
wages
level
men
recent
company
policies
reflect
common
concerning
potentialities
pregnant
women
see
cleveland
board
education
lafleur
coupled
forced
maternity
leave
nonpayment
disability
payments
thus
district
found
certain
instances
appears
pregnant
employee
required
take
leave
position
three
months
prior
birth
permitted
return
six
weeks
birth
instances
periods
varied
short
employees
pregnant
women
required
cease
work
regardless
desire
physical
ability
work
required
remain
job
arbitrary
period
birth
child
supp
february
approximately
coinciding
commencement
suit
company
abandoned
policy
formal
directive
appeals
affirm
basis
finding
since
concluded
statute
looks
consequences
intent
ny
discrimination
inextricably
consequences
result
violative
act
course
even
proposition
pregnancy
voluntary
condition
overbroad
district
found
substantial
incidence
negligent
accidental
conception
also
occurs
may
assume
however
purposes
argument
high
incidence
voluntary
pregnancies
inability
differentiate
voluntary
involuntary
conceptions
except
perhaps
obnoxious
intrusive
means
justify
treating
pregnancies
voluntarily
induced
experience
one
class
plaintiffs
instructive
reach
pregnancy
exclusion
april
took
pregnancy
leave
delivering
stillborn
baby
nine
days
later
upon
return
home
suffered
blood
clot
lung
condition
unrelated
pregnancy
rehospitalized
company
declined
claim
disability
payments
ground
pregnancy
severed
eligibility
plan
see
separated
work
reason
example
work
stoppage
plan
fully
covered
embolism
indeed
shallowness
underinclusive
analysis
transparent
general
electric
assembled
catalogue
ailments
befall
humanity
systematically
proceeded
exclude
coverage
every
disability
predominantly
afflicts
women
still
reason
plan
operates
equally
women
like
men
entitled
draw
disability
payments
circumcisions
prostatectomies
neither
sex
claim
payments
pregnancies
breast
cancer
excluded
disabilities
along
similar
lines
disability
occurs
disproportionately
particular
group
anemia
example
freely
excluded
plan
without
troubling
analytical
approach
cryptic
cf
citation
mcdonnell
douglas
green
ante
perhaps
mystifying
mcdonnell
involved
private
nonclass
action
title
vii
plaintiff
explicitly
complained
discharged
employment
racial
rather
licit
motives
case
questions
motivation
openly
form
thrust
individual
plaintiff
complaint
effects
company
policies
may
entire
class
persons
understandably
tangentially
placed
issue
see
even
expressly
held
prima
facie
violation
title
vii
proved
without
affirmatively
demonstrating
purposeful
discrimination
occurred
instead
concluded
illicit
purpose
inferable
interplay
four
factors
together
reveal
employers
policies
worked
disadvantage
complainant
prospective
employees
see
employer
satisfies
burden
articulating
legitimate
reason
employee
rejection
must
latter
actually
seek
establish
intent
discriminate
even
juncture
however
mcdonnell
makes
clear
statistical
evidence
racial
composition
labor
force
statistical
showing
adverse
impact
protected
group
individual
plaintiff
part
persuasive
evidence
failure
rehire
particular
complainant
conformed
general
pattern
discrimination
group
thus
mcdonnell
went
far
allowing
proof
effect
even
setting
individualized
rather
group
claim
discrimination
equally
unacceptable
implication
penultimate
paragraph
opinion
ante
fourteenth
amendment
standard
discrimination
coterminous
applicable
title
vii
fleeting
dictum
irrelevant
reasoning
precedes
conflict
long
line
cases
contrary
infra
page
flatly
contradicted
central
holding
last
term
washington
davis
never
held
constitutional
standard
adjudicating
claims
invidious
racial
discrimination
identical
standards
applicable
title
vii
decline
today
see
boston
chapter
naacp
beecher
wood
wire
metal
lathers
local
union
pennsylvania
en
banc
chesapeake
ohio
hayes
masonry
contractors
assn
memphis
carpenters
industries
ironworkers
local
muller
steel
davis
washington
app
rev
constitutional
grounds
indeed
following
griggs
congress
revised
title
vii
expressly
endorsed
use
effect
test
outlined
therein
identifying
increasingly
complex
forms
incidents
discrimination
may
appear
obvious
first
glance
see
synopses
commission
positions
regarding
pregnancy
sex
discrimination
adopted
course
administrative
decisionmaking
litigation
activities
see
eeoc
annual
reports
congress
lau
held
failure
provide
special
language
instruction
students
san
francisco
schools
violated
ban
racial
national
origin
discrimination
contained
civil
rights
act
concluded
act
interpreted
administrative
regulations
promulgated
department
health
education
welfare
addressed
effect
discriminate
even
though
purposeful
design
present
ultimately
sought
broad
goal
insuring
meaningful
opportunity
participate
schools
educational
program
faced
generalized
objective
repudiated
analysis
appeals
relied
upon
san
francisco
commitment
equal
educational
offerings
resources
every
child
basis
concluding
chinese
students
suffered
discrimination
due
failure
adjust
school
program
remedy
unique
language
deficiencies
instead
agreed
language
fairly
read
require
affirmative
remedial
efforts
give
special
attention
linguistically
deprived
children
stewart
concurring
similarly
given
broad
social
objectives
underlie
title
vii
see
infra
general
electric
apparent
unhesitancy
take
account
unique
physical
characteristics
male
workers
defining
breadth
disability
coverage
see
supra
ample
support
appears
upholding
eeoc
view
pregnancy
must
treated
accordingly
see
supra
justice
stevens
dissenting
word
discriminate
appear
equal
protection
clause
since
plaintiffs
burden
proving
prima
facie
violation
constitutional
provision
significantly
heavier
burden
proving
prima
facie
violation
statutory
prohibition
discrimination
constitutional
holding
geduldig
aiello
control
question
statutory
interpretation
presented
case
course
enacted
title
vii
civil
rights
act
congress
possibly
relied
language
use
decade
later
geduldig
opinion
therefore
presented
fresh
rather
simple
question
statutory
construction
contract
company
employees
treats
risk
absenteeism
caused
pregnancy
differently
kind
absence
discriminate
certain
individuals
sex
affirmative
answer
question
necessarily
lead
conclusion
illegality
statutory
affirmative
defense
might
justify
disparate
treatment
pregnant
women
certain
situations
case
however
company
established
justification
hand
negative
answer
threshold
question
necessarily
defeat
plaintiffs
claim
facially
neutral
criteria
may
illegal
discriminatory
effect
analysis
effect
company
rules
relating
absenteeism
appropriate
rules
referred
neutral
criteria
whether
absence
voluntary
involuntary
perhaps
particularly
costly
case
however
involve
rules
kind
rather
rule
issue
places
risk
absence
caused
pregnancy
class
definition
rule
discriminates
account
sex
capacity
become
pregnant
primarily
differentiates
female
male
analysis
whether
rule
relates
hiring
promotion
acceptability
excuse
absence
exclusion
disability
insurance
plan
accordingly
without
reaching
questions
motive
administrative
expertise
policy
justice
brennan
persuasively
exposes
question
effect
justice
stewart
justice
blackmun
refer
conclude
language
statute
plainly
requires
result
courts
appeals
reached
unanimously
word
however
appear
number
statutes
means
given
uniform
interpretation
statutes
compare
ftc
morton
salt
act
nlrb
great
dane
trailers
national
labor
relations
act
washington
davis
quite
clearly
congress
intended
adopt
analysis
sex
discrimination
seven
years
statute
passed
first
intimated
concept
sex
discrimination
might
relevance
equal
protection
analysis
see
reed
reed
griggs
duke
power
accurate
describe
program
dividing
potential
recipients
two
groups
pregnant
women
nonpregnant
persons
ante
insurance
programs
company
policies
employment
contracts
deal
future
risks
rather
historic
facts
classification
persons
face
risk
pregnancy
accurate
state
plan
risk
men
protected
women
ibid
word
risk
used
narrowly
men
protected
risks
associated
prostate
operation
whereas
women
word
used
broadly
describe
risk
uncompensated
unemployment
caused
physical
disability
men
receive
total
protection
subject
limitations
risk
whereas
women
receive
partial
protection