Geduldig v. Aiello
417 U.S. 484 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's disability insurance program that excludes coverage for disabilities resulting from a normal pregnancy does not constitute invidious discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- California established a disability insurance program funded entirely by a one-percent mandatory contribution from the wages of participating private-sector employees.
- The program was designed to provide benefits to employees temporarily unable to work due to a disability not covered by workers' compensation.
- A provision of the California Unemployment Insurance Code, § 2626, explicitly defined 'disability' to exclude any illness or injury 'caused by or arising in connection with pregnancy.'
- Four women, Carolyn Aiello, Augustina Armendariz, Elizabeth Johnson, and Jacqueline Jaramillo, paid into the disability fund and were otherwise eligible for benefits.
- All four women became disabled due to their pregnancies and were denied benefits by California officials based on the pregnancy exclusion.
- Aiello, Armendariz, and Johnson suffered from abnormal pregnancy complications, while Jaramillo experienced a normal pregnancy and childbirth.
- Following a state court ruling unrelated to this case, California began paying benefits for abnormal pregnancy complications, thus satisfying the claims of Aiello, Armendariz, and Johnson.
- Jacqueline Jaramillo's disability stemmed solely from a normal pregnancy, and her claim for benefits continued to be denied under the state's revised policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Four women, including appellee Jaramillo, were denied benefits by the Director of the California Department of Human Resources Development, Geduldig (appellant).
- The women filed class-action lawsuits in federal court, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court granted summary judgment for the women, holding the pregnancy exclusion unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and enjoining its enforcement.
- The District Court denied the appellant's motion to stay the judgment.
- The appellant, Geduldig, filed a direct appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's disability insurance program that excludes coverage for disabilities resulting from normal pregnancy violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
No, a state's disability insurance program that excludes coverage for normal pregnancy does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The classification is not based on gender but on a unique physical condition, pregnancy, and is rationally related to legitimate state interests. The Court reasoned that the insurance program does not discriminate against any definable group or class, as the line is not drawn between men and women, but between pregnant persons and non-pregnant persons, the latter group containing members of both sexes. California has legitimate interests in maintaining the fiscal integrity and self-supporting nature of the program, keeping employee contribution rates low, and providing adequate benefit levels for the disabilities it does cover. The state is permitted to address social welfare problems one step at a time and is not constitutionally required to create an all-inclusive insurance program.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, the exclusion of normal pregnancy-related disabilities from the program violates the Equal Protection Clause. By singling out a gender-linked disability peculiar to women for less favorable treatment, the state created a sex-based classification that should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, not the rational basis test. The dissent argued that the state's justification of cost-saving is insufficient to justify an otherwise invidious classification that discriminates on the basis of sex. Men receive full compensation for all disabilities, including those unique to their sex (e.g., prostatectomies), while women are denied coverage for a condition only they can experience. This dissimilar treatment, based on physical characteristics inextricably linked to one sex, constitutes sex discrimination that fails to serve any compelling state interest.
Analysis:
This decision established the significant, though controversial, precedent that classifications based on pregnancy are not necessarily sex-based classifications subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court's holding allowed states to exclude pregnancy from disability benefits programs on a rational basis, treating it like any other legislative choice in social welfare programs. The ruling sparked a strong public and legislative reaction, leading Congress to effectively overturn its application in the employment context by passing the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to require that pregnancy-related conditions be treated the same as other medical conditions.
