## Facts

- Nashville Gas Company required pregnant employees to take an unpaid leave of absence during pregnancy.
- For non-pregnancy, nonoccupational disabilities, the company provided sick pay and allowed employees to retain accumulated seniority during the leave.
- For pregnancy leave, the company provided no sick pay and required the employee to forfeit all previously accumulated seniority.
- Loss of seniority reduced returning employees’ access to preferred assignments and permanent positions when other employees sought the same positions.
- Lillian Satty, a clerical employee, challenged the pregnancy leave policies as sex discrimination under Title VII.

## Issues

1. Whether denying accumulated seniority to employees returning from pregnancy leave violates Title VII § 703(a)(2) by depriving women of employment opportunities or adversely affecting their status because of sex.
2. Whether excluding pregnancy from sick-leave pay, while paying sick leave for other nonoccupational disabilities, violates Title VII.

## Decision

- The Court held that the seniority forfeiture policy violated Title VII § 703(a)(2) because it deprived women of employment opportunities and adversely affected their status as employees due to sex.
- The Court distinguished a refusal to provide pregnancy-related benefits from imposing a unique employment burden on women (loss of previously earned seniority).
- The Court noted there was no showing of business necessity justifying the pregnancy-related seniority forfeiture.
- The Court held the sick-pay exclusion for pregnancy was not a per se Title VII violation under existing precedent, but could be unlawful if used as a pretext for sex discrimination.
- The Court affirmed in part and remanded for further proceedings on whether the sick-pay exclusion could be pursued on a pretext theory.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII § 703(a)(2) prohibits employment classifications that deprive individuals of employment opportunities or adversely affect employee status because of sex.
- A facially neutral policy may violate Title VII if it has a discriminatory effect on a protected group and is not justified by business necessity.
- Under then-existing precedent, excluding pregnancy from a disability or sick-pay plan is not automatically sex discrimination, but may still violate Title VII if shown to be a pretext for intentional sex-based discrimination.
- Title VII does not require employers to provide pregnancy-related benefits simply because of biological differences, but it forbids imposing special employment burdens on women because of pregnancy.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that stripping accumulated seniority from employees returning from pregnancy leave unlawfully burdened women in violation of Title VII, while the pregnancy sick-pay exclusion was not automatically unlawful and required remand to determine whether it could be challenged as pretextual sex discrimination.


Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U.S. 136 (1977)