CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | Brown vs. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954); 349 US 294 (1955)
Brown vs. Board of Education,
347 US 483 (1954); 349 US 294 (1955)
FACTS The entirely self-supporting disability insurance system in California paid benefits to people in private employment who were temporarily unable to work but would not be eligible for workers' compensation benefits. Each employee contributed one percent of his or her income to the fund in exchange for being insured against the risk of disability resulting from many types of mental and physical injuries and illnesses. However, the program defined "disability" in a way that excluded certain pregnancy-related disabilities. Women suffering from these disabilities, who otherwise would have been eligible to receive benefits under the program, argued that it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The lower court agreed that the program engaged in gender discrimination. Whether or not the law violates the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution. (NO)
HELD States are not constitutionally required to have more comprehensive social welfare programs than they currently do. There is no illegitimate or malignant motive behind the state's exclusion of pregnancy-related disabilities. The exclusion is based on pregnancy rather than sex, which makes it less likely to involve discrimination.