## Facts

- After enactment of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), Newport News amended its employer health-insurance plan.
- The amended plan provided female employees pregnancy-related hospitalization benefits to the same extent as other medical conditions.
- The plan provided less extensive pregnancy-related hospitalization benefits for the wives of male employees than for pregnancy of female employees.
- The EEOC took the position that this disparity in dependent pregnancy coverage violated Title VII as amended by the PDA.
- Newport News filed suit challenging the EEOC’s position; the EEOC filed an action alleging sex discrimination against male employees in the provision of pregnancy-related dependent benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether a health plan that covers pregnancy for female employees but provides lesser pregnancy coverage for the wives of male employees violates Title VII § 703(a)(1) as amended by the PDA.
2. Whether Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination in “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” reaches disparities in fringe benefits tied to an employee’s spouse.
3. Whether the PDA overruled the prior approach that treated pregnancy-based benefit exclusions as not sex discrimination.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court held that the plan’s limitation on pregnancy-related benefits for wives of male employees discriminated against male employees in violation of Title VII § 703(a)(1), as amended by the PDA.
- The Court rejected the argument that Title VII does not cover spouse-related pregnancy benefits because the relevant “employment” practice is the employee’s fringe-benefit package.
- The Court treated the PDA as repudiating the earlier reasoning that differential treatment of pregnancy is not sex-based discrimination.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title VII § 703(a)(1), discrimination in fringe benefits (including health insurance) constitutes discrimination in the “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”
- The PDA defines discrimination “because of sex” to include discrimination “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” and requires equal treatment of pregnancy for employment-related purposes.
- A benefits plan that provides married male employees less inclusive dependent coverage for pregnancy than married female employees receives is sex discrimination against male employees because the disparity is tied to the employee’s sex.
- Congress, through the PDA, both overruled the result and rejected the analytical framework that treated pregnancy-based exclusions as non-sex-based classifications.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a health-insurance plan violates Title VII, as amended by the PDA, when it equalizes pregnancy coverage for female employees but provides lesser pregnancy-related dependent coverage for the wives of male employees, because the disparity is discrimination against male employees in a term or privilege of employment.


Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669 (1983)