Geduldig v. Aiello

Week 12 — Sex Discrimination

Facts

California's state-sponsored disability insurance system refused to cover pregnancy-related disabilities.
The exclusion was justified as a financially driven decision for the fund's solvency.
It was challenged as facial sex discrimination.

Whether a classification distinguishing pregnant from non-pregnant persons is itself a sex-based classification triggering heightened scrutiny.

No. The exclusion was not sex-based discrimination.

The classification was a distinction between pregnant people and non-pregnant people, not necessarily a classification on sex alone.
There was no other evidence the policy was designed to discriminate against women.
Because no facial sex classification existed, intermediate scrutiny was not triggered.

Reviewing whether a state action is discriminatory on the basis of sex requires checking that sex is truly the classification being made.
OLD LAW (statutorily): Congress overruled Geduldig in the employment context with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, outlawing discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.
Geduldig is still applied in other contexts to conclude that attempts to regulate pregnancy or abortion are not gender discrimination, and thus are not subject to heightened scrutiny — see, e.g., Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.