Document: 434 U.S. 136 Nashville Gas Co.v.Satty No. 76-536. Argued October 5, 1977 Decided December 6, Syllabus Petitioner employer requires a pregnant employee to take leave of absence. While on such the receives no sick pay, as is paid for nonoccupational disabilities other than pregnancy. She also loses all accumulated job seniority, retained leaves disabilities, with result that although petitioner will attempt provide her temporary work return, she be employed in permanent position only if currently applies position. In respondent employee's action challenging those policies, District Court held they violated Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964, and Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. Petitioner's policy denying employees returning from pregnancy their seniority acts both deprive them "of employment opportunities" "adversely affect [their] status an employee" because sex violation § 703(a)(2) VII. Pp. 139-143. (a) petitioner's facially neutral male female retain while pregnancy, whereas divested takes any reason, including its discriminatory effect causes it run afoul 703(a)(2). 140-141. (b) has not merely refused extend women benefit men cannot do receive, but imposed substantial burden need suffer. does require greater economic benefits one or different roles, this allow read so permit way opportunities roles. General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 125, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343, distinguished. P. 141-142. (c) There proof business necessity justifying adoption respect case. 143. 2. awarding sick-leave pay per se VII, facial neutrality end analysis can shown exclusion compensation conditions mere "pretex[t] designed invidious discrimination against members other." supra, at 136, 408. Hence, absent showing decisions below were based finding there was pretext, case remanded determine whether preserved right proceed further theory. 143-146. 522 F.2d 850, affirmed part, vacated remanded. Charles K. Wray, Nashville, Tenn., petitioner. Robert W. Weismueller, Jr., respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 formal The receive leave. seniority; result, attempts upon presently working United States Middle Tennessee these policies violate 78 Stat. 253, amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. (1970 ed. Supp. V). 384 F.Supp. 765 (1974). Sixth Circuit 850 (1975). We granted certiorari 1071, 806, 788, decide, light our last Term 343 (1976), lower courts properly applied respecting 2 Two separate are issue first practice giving disabled by reason sickness injury second following disability caused childbirth.1 shall discuss reversed order. 3 * who about give birth indeterminate length. Such accumulate absent, instead actually accrued before commenced. hold open awaiting return An wishes placed which qualified individual bidding; time becomes available, company find employee. If when acquires position, regains previously purposes pension, vacation, like, regain purpose bidding future openings. 4 Respondent began March 24, 1969, clerk Customer Accounting Department. commenced maternity 29, 1972, gave child January 23, 1973. Seven weeks later sought re-employment had been eliminated bona fide cutbacks department. Temporary found salary earned prior taking holding employment, unsuccessfully three positions Each awarded another begun returned leave; credited leave, would have applied. After assignment completed, requested, "due lack openings," change termination order could draw unemployment compensation. 5 conclude violates 2000e-2(a)(2) ed., That section declares unlawful 6 "limit, segregate, classify his applicants tend otherwise adversely individual's . .." 7 On face, appears treatment employees.2 forced absence disease employee, female, retains and, indeed, continues accrue leave.3 divested. decision treat retention face policy. "Pregnancy is, course, confined women, ways significantly typical covered disability." U.S., S.Ct., 8 recognized, however, intentional having may Griggs Duke Power Co., 401 424, 431, 91 849, 854, 28 158 (1971). It beyond dispute depriving employee." apparent previous recitation events occurred respondent's denied specific obtained. Even ultimately able petitioner, felt effects level, attendant relegation less desirable paying jobs, remainder career 9 Electric's compensating non-job-related except favored over women. No evidence produced suggest received more insurance fund did women; subject generally presumably drew similar amounts fund. therefore upheld plan under 10 "As package fact worth impossible gender-based scheme simply benefits; say, employer's disability-benefits all-inclusive. For appears, pregnancy-related constitute additional risk, unique failure compensate risk destroy presumed parity benefits, accruing alike, results evenhanded inclusion risks." 138-139, 409-410 (footnote omitted). 11 Here, comparison, distinction between burdens semantics. Gilbert 703(a)(1) "because differing roles 'the human existence,' " 139, 410 n. 17. But us role.4 Recognition system inquiry company's necessitates particular prohibit applying absence, leaves; even though employees. Griggs, 853; Dothard Rawlinson, 433 321, 331-332 14, 2720, 2728 53 786 (1977). we agree since adduced question, court entitled "assume justification exists."5 F.Supp., 771. II 12 basis presented Court, legally indistinguishable disability-insurance program Gilbert. As compensates limited periods during must miss illness disability. extended absences. emphasized exclusions kind violations VII: "[A]n providing general coverage all." Only plaintiff through presentation demonstrate compensated 'pretex[t] other' apply. Ibid. 13 introduced indicating substantially sums program, excluded Id., 130-131, nn. 10, 405-406. depend evidence. expressly declined "that present actuarial value equal women." 131, 406. ground neither [was] finding, nor support financial Plan 'worked discriminate definable group class terms aggregate protection derived program.' 138, 409. When confronted plan, whose fault underinclusiveness, show discriminates Albemarle Paper Moody, 422 405, 425, 95 2362, 2375, 45 280 (1975); McDonnell Douglas Corp. Green, 411 792, 802, 93 1817, 1824, 36 668 (1973). 14 again decide whether, necessary prove intent establish prima facie 703(a)(1). Cf. Corp., 802-806, 1824-1826. established effect. difficult perceive how "would "otherwise direct loss income period work; either status. Plaintiff's attack brought 703(a)(1), appear proper analyze questions payments. 15 failed plan. candidly concedes brief "petitioner's Sick Leave itself, intents purposes, same Weekly Sickness Accident Insurance examined Gilbert" "if manner treated differently control." Brief 10. Respondent, contends differentiation fall. 16 conclusion means follows premise. herself abandoned attacks aspects rulings adverse scarcely consistent one. course recognized Geduldig Aiello, 417 484, 94 2485, 41 256 (1974), 'distinctions involving pretexts .' 135, 407. refusal deemed relevant trier deciding pretext. most certainly fact, say nothing making original matter 17 sitting made case, advised requested not. embodied line reasoning Fourth followed 519 661 Since rejected judgment sick-pay vacated. better know adequately theory just described.6 18 Affirmed 19 POWELL, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, concurring part. 20 I join Part affirming job-bidding VII.1 21 concur II, legal factual development (1976). write separately, constricted unnecessarily scope remand prematurely meet establishing This tried reviewed appellant claim accord then uniform view Courts violative VII.2 make required follow usual vacating remanding reconsider ruling intervening decision. 22 proof, rests plaintiff. (1973), "full opportunity facts," Harris Nelson, 394 286, 298, 89 1082, 1098, 281 (1969). Given meandering adjudication taken, final resolution lawsuit often possible parties proceeded what erroneous Where mistaken premised pre-existing understanding law, where record constituted foreclose arguments ruling, prefer controversy pass new contentions whatever necessary. 23 example, approved Appeals' proved relatedness testing immediate issuance injunction use plant. thought indicated part "[t]he appropriate standard clarified until today," plaintiffs "have today specifically apprised validated tests might 'pretext' alternative selection procedures available Company." 436, 2380. 24 Similarly, International Bhd. Teamsters States, 431 324, 1843, 52 396 (1977), Government evidentiary approach precluded satisfaction identifying nonapplicant victims thus retroactive award. "While true many desired line-driver jobs knowledge discrimination, carry each individual, remedial hearings conducted remand." 371, 1873.3 Brown Illinois, 590, 613-616, 2254, 2266-2268, 416 (1975) (Powell, J., part). 25 enabled prevail Appeals. Instead, urges distinguishable : 26 "Respondent submits experience controlling. Upon examination overall plain much pervasive underinclusiveness Gilbert." 27 At least two distinguishing characteristics identified First, woman cases available. 765, 767, 771 (MD Tenn. 1974). Second, necessarily related denial mandatory flow premise longer active service pregnant. Although fully articulated, presents plausible contention, raised foreclosed stipulated record, see 130-131 131 405 406 concurrent findings courts, Village Arlington Heights Metropolitan Housing Dev. 252, 270, 555, 566, 450 inconceivable combined operation maternity-leave policy4 yielded net A number former, latter endured without July 2, 1965, August 27, 1974, some months more. App. 33. exhausted compelled resulted relative force. employees, hand, policy, eligible form due 29 short, possibility facts developed "the made, barred Gilbert.5 related: "The noted trial, good deal stipulated, concerning cost that, excluded, high as, higher than, 130, (footnotes "found within 'increase G. E.'s [disability-benefits plan] costs amount which, large, undeterminable.' 375 378." explicit referring quantum specificity "business necessity" defense. See 367, 382-383 (ED Va.1974). event, viewed precluding "compensation" contrary "Whatever ultimate probative ., very tended illustrate risks operate, 137-138, remand. 30 principles enunciated Gilbert.6 proceedings 31 STEVENS, judgment. 32 enforces favorably incur thereafter; second, holds former lawful. Court's judgment, believe explanation engender confusion among compliance day-to-day basis, advance separate, rather pragmatic, reconciling parts 343. 33 problem attaches special absenteeism statutory prohibition discrimination. answer "always," quite plainly correct,1 "never" seem dictated "not all."2 has, clear correct "sometimes." frankly unambiguously "facially neutral," "discriminatory effect."3 then, identify 34 answers suggested seems rely difference burden, my differences illusory.4 described way: unwilling compared physical disabilities—is account sex, nevertheless formerly employees—as employees—does pragmatically expressed term 35 characterizes neutral" differentiates illness, context limits reach broad characterization. Under reasoning, company. nonpregnant, contracted measles, he moreover, benefits. occurring covered.5 During temporarily cut off Company's times, eligibility plan's markedly attempting work, deprived seniority. affects ability re-enter force, return.6 Company argues permissible initial unexcused argument misconceives afforded decisions. attach consequences condition allowed temporal gap full woman. period, determination illness.7 impact after terminated. person permanently disadvantaged rest And persons affected exclusively class, obvious effect.8 37 analysis, rule discriminating invalid. equally rationale, free withhold period.9 38 evident dissent simpler rationale. preference law now stands, pregnancy—as permissible, indissolubly linked together, likewise so. herself, taken tack throughout lawsuit. attacked us, addition requirement commence five delivery child, allegedly retaliation complaint regarding hospitalization life, health, accident partly concluded practices appeal determination. appealed appearance contention identical pursue education. However, date outside context. 1962, college degree; "employees long non-job injuries lose absent." 768 reveals heart yet dating back hire. Our finds regulations Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 1972 guidelines EEOC specify "[w]ritten unwritten accrual reinstatement childbirth disabilities." CFR 1604.10(b) portion guideline conflicted prior, contemporaneous, interpretations EEOC, federal agencies charged executing legislation dealing applicable legislative history not, set completely naught weight given guideline. 143, 411. 434, 855, prohibits here past EEOC. See, e. g., First Annual Report, H.R.Doc.No. 86, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 40 (1967); Digest Legal Interpretations, 1965-July 1966, p. (Opinion Letter GC 218-66 (June 1966)); CCH Decisions (1973) ¶ 6084 (Dec. 16, 1969); 6184 4, 1970). Nor pointed conflicting opinions responsible regulating field considered Skidmore Swift & 323 134, 140, 65 161, 164, L.Ed. 124 (1944). Indeed, easily conflict own efficiency interests. particular, inexperienced experienced employees; spent lengthy expected loyal displaced relatively Female motivated perform efficiently difficulty advancing firm. Brother POWELL suggests develop articulated viz., monetarily He expansive formulated "had Post, 148. Respondent's filed 1, 1974; pretrial entered setting forth plaintiff's defendant's 28, memorandum November 20, respectively. refers Wetzel Liberty Mutual Ins. 511 199 (CA3), decided February 11, 1975. BRENNAN, dissenting 146, 413. Not complaint, rendered decision, recently decided, said behalf question carried cognate sections issues, speaks itself; think rightly characterized drastic understood exist 1974 enable raise reopen issues settled do. assume apply claims add, "appea[r] employees." Ante, 140. below, "only thereby non-work-related ." Tenn.1974). "identical education." 140 cited 147, 413, (1976) (Brennan, dissenting). rationale challenge grounds, plans. 133-136, 406-408. itself silent issue, unreasonably anticipate extent Washington Davis, 426 229, 246-248, 96 2040, 2051-2052, 48 597 "evaluated abstract equitable balance should struck rights contractual nonvictim employees," preferring lodge task, instance, trial best 376, 1875. majority places reliance lawful 138 145. reasons stated text, maintenance entirely lawful, bearing "is women," Also, left demonstrated, bar. point "exclusion 'pretex[t].' 144. Later opinion, states "whether, 703(a)(1)." neutral. Moreover, ambiguity language Stewart Blackmun, grounded primarily shown. fair reading demonstrated total disability-benefit plans well exceeded men. mathematical exactitude every essential equality comparable view, violation. "An rules relating referred criteria, voluntary involuntary, perhaps particularly costly. involve kind. "Rather, itself. By definition, sex; capacity become male. relates hiring, promotion, acceptability excuse plan." 161-162, 421, (Stevens, 408, "an Consistently holding, "decision policy." 141; 413 (Stewart, concurring); ibid. (Blackmun, Differences meaningful test since, hypothesis, always benefited disfavored burdened. grant shared burdened class; conversely, bear. unsatisfactory. Again, confess understand relevance distinction. "discrimination" recognizes significant occurs effect." 141 (emphasis added). contain Whatever merits suggestion, subparagraphs 703 refuses issue. 129 404. greatest refuse suppose aspect explained notion attributable embraced area 138-139. These limitations—that illness—serve focus disparate Obviously, persons. consequence above, person. post-Gilbert pregnancy-based "nothing foreclosing opportunity." Cook Arentzen, EPD 7544, 4702 (CA4 1977); MacLennan American Airlines, Inc., 440 466 (Va. 1977) (addressing when, ever, leave). pose still another. 151-152. overruling great caution, laws probability invalidate inordinate me showing, "mathematical exactitude," ante, 152 classification, definition gender specific, sex. Usually, statistical disparities aid determining apparently classification effect, race specific. statistics unnecessary point. events, accordingly

Category: 1