From our private database of 31,100+ case briefs...
Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
United States Supreme Court
462 U.S. 669 (1983)
The United States Supreme Court held in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976), that an employer’s disability plan that excluded pregnancy-related disabilities from coverage did not discriminate based on sex. The Court reasoned that the plan divided employees into two groups for purposes of disability coverage: pregnant women and individuals who are not pregnant. Because the latter group included both men and women, the court reasoned that there was no sex-based discrimination. The dissent argued that the majority’s analysis was erroneous because the plan extended full coverage to male employees but extended only partial coverage to female employees. A proper analysis, argued the dissent, would categorize employees based on those who face a risk of pregnancy and those who do not. Two years later, Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) to prohibit “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.” Both the House and Senate committee reports on the PDA explicitly approved of the dissent’s analysis in Gilbert. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. (company) (plaintiff) offered its employees a health-insurance plan that provided full coverage for pregnancy-related hospitalizations to its female employees but limited coverage to the wives of its male employees. After an employee filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming that the company’s policy violated Title VII, the company filed an action in federal district court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court found that the company’s plan did not violate Title VII. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the plan unlawfully discriminated against male employees. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 557,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 557,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.