Geduldig v. Aiello
Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484 (1974), was an equal protection case in the United States in which the US Supreme Court ruled on whether unfavorable treatment to pregnant women could count as sex discrimination. It held that the denial of insurance benefits for work loss resulting from a normal pregnancy did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The California insurance program at issue did not exclude workers from eligibility based on sex but excluded pregnancy from a list of compensable disabilities. The majority found that even though only women would be directly affected by the administrative decision, the classification of normal pregnancy as non-compensable was not a sex-based classification and so the court would defer to the state so long as it could provide a rational basis for i
Wikipage redirect
417 U.S. 484AT&T Corp. v. HulteenBliss v Canada (AG)Geduldig v AielloHistory of labor law in the United StatesList of United States Supreme Court cases by the Burger CourtList of gender equality lawsuitsOhio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc.Pregnancy Discrimination ActPregnancy discriminationTimeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) in the 20th centuryTimeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting)Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
primaryTopic
Geduldig v. Aiello
Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484 (1974), was an equal protection case in the United States in which the US Supreme Court ruled on whether unfavorable treatment to pregnant women could count as sex discrimination. It held that the denial of insurance benefits for work loss resulting from a normal pregnancy did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The California insurance program at issue did not exclude workers from eligibility based on sex but excluded pregnancy from a list of compensable disabilities. The majority found that even though only women would be directly affected by the administrative decision, the classification of normal pregnancy as non-compensable was not a sex-based classification and so the court would defer to the state so long as it could provide a rational basis for i
has abstract
Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 4 ...... basis for its categorization.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
11,342,019
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
1,022,510,063
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
case
Geduldig v. Aiello,
@en
courtlistener
DecideDate
DecideYear
Dissent
Brennan
@en
fullname
Geduldig v. Aiello et al.
@en
googlescholar
Holding
Denial of benefits for work lo ...... e of the Fourteenth Amendment.
@en
JoinDissent
Douglas, Marshall
@en
JoinMajority
Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist
@en
justia
Litigants
Geduldig v. Aiello
@en
majority
Stewart
@en
oyez
ParallelCitations
wikiPageUsesTemplate
subject
comment
Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 4 ...... provide a rational basis for i
@en
label
Geduldig v. Aiello
@en
wasDerivedFrom
isPrimaryTopicOf
name
@en
Geduldig v. Aiello et al.
@en