The Supreme Court Avoids Considering Sex-Based Classifications: \u3ci\u3eGeduldig v. Aiello\u3c/i\u3e, 417 U.S. 484 (1974)

In Geduldig v. Aielo, the United States Supreme Court held that California\u27s refusal to insure normal pregnancies in the state disability insurance program was not a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Over strong dissent, the Court held that California could take one step at a time in selecting the disabilities its insurance program would cover. Therefore, the statutory scheme did not involve a denial of equal protection and the district court was reversed. In this holding, the Court offered dicta which have sewn the seeds of confusion in the lower courts and left murkier than ever the question of the constitutionality of sex-based classifications. I. Introduction II. The Facts III. The Court’s Reasoning IV. Footnote 20 … A. The Classification … B. Pretexts Designed to Effect Invidious Discrimination … C. Pregnancy-Based Classifications as Sex-Based Classifications V. Sex-Based Classifications under Title VII VI. Conclusio