## Facts

- General Electric Company maintained a nonoccupational sickness and accident disability plan covering many illnesses and injuries.
- The plan expressly excluded disabilities arising from pregnancy.
- A certified class of female employees and former employees challenged the exclusion as discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII § 703(a)(1).
- The challenged plan was materially similar to a state disability insurance program that excluded pregnancy-related disabilities.

## Issues

1. Whether a disability benefits plan covering nonoccupational disabilities but excluding pregnancy-related disabilities discriminates “because of sex” in violation of Title VII § 703(a)(1).
2. What weight, if any, should be given to EEOC guidelines treating pregnancy-exclusion policies as sex discrimination under Title VII.
3. Whether an exclusion of pregnancy should be treated as a sex-based classification absent proof it is a pretext for intentional discrimination against women.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and held the plan did not violate Title VII merely because it excluded pregnancy-related disabilities.
- The Court treated the policy as distinguishing between pregnancy and other conditions, not between men and women as such.
- The Court rejected reliance on EEOC guidelines as controlling where they conflicted with the Court’s reading of the statute.
- Dissents argued the exclusion imposed a burden only women can bear and therefore constituted sex discrimination under Title VII.

## Legal Principles

- An employer policy does not necessarily discriminate “because of sex” under Title VII solely by excluding pregnancy-related disabilities from an otherwise broad disability plan.
- A pregnancy exclusion may be analyzed as a condition-based classification (pregnancy versus other disabling conditions) rather than a facial sex-based classification.
- Absent proof that a pregnancy exclusion is a pretext designed to disadvantage one sex, Title VII does not require that voluntary disability benefits include pregnancy coverage.
- EEOC guidelines interpreting Title VII receive limited weight when not contemporaneous with enactment and when inconsistent with the Court’s interpretation of statutory text and intent.
- Congress may supersede statutory interpretations by amendment; subsequent amendments to Title VII later treated pregnancy-related discrimination as sex discrimination.

## Conclusion

The Court held that excluding pregnancy-related disabilities from a general nonoccupational disability plan was not, by itself, sex discrimination under Title VII, absent proof of pretext or discriminatory purpose; Congress later amended Title VII to treat pregnancy-related discrimination as discrimination because of sex.


Gen. Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976)