Geduldig v. Aiello

In his 17 June 1974, opinion for the majority of the Court, Justice Stewart wrote that the Court had evaluated a number of "variables," including "the benefit level deemed appropriate to compensate employee disability, the risks selected to be insured . . . and the contribution rate chosen to maintain the solvency of the program and at the same time to permit low-income employees to participate . . . " Stewart said the Court found that the "essential issue in this case is whether the Equal Protection Clause requires such policies to be sacrificed or compromised in order to finance the payment of benefits to those whose disability is attributable to normal pregnancy and delivery."

The Court found that California, in designing its program, had addressed its legitimate governmental interests without engaging in "invidious discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause." Noting that "there is nothing in the Constitution . . . that requires the State to subordinate or compromise its legitimate interests solely to create a more comprehensive social program than it already has," Stewart wrote that the plan included "no risk from which men are protected and women are not. Likewise, there is no risk from which women are protected and men are not." The court reversed the judgment of the district court, and permitted California to retain the exclusion for disability claims arising from normal pregnancy and delivery.