GEDULDIG V. AIELLO
417 U.S. 484 (1974)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an action to challenge the constitutionality of a provision
of the California program that, in defining 'disability,' excludes from coverage certain
disabilities resulting from pregnancy.
FACTS: Appellees are four women who have paid sufficient amounts into the Disability Fund
to be eligible for benefits under the program. Each of the appellees became pregnant and
suffered employment disability as a result of her pregnancy. Most of the disabilities were
attributable to abnormal complications encountered during their pregnancies. On Appellee
experienced a normal pregnancy, which was the sole cause of her disability. As part of its
definition of disability California stated: In no case shall the term 'disability' or
'disabled' include any injury or illness caused by or arising in connection with pregnancy
up to the termination of such pregnancy and for a period of 28 days thereafter. The three
judge District Court held that this provision of the disability insurance program violates
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore enjoined its
continued enforcement. It held that the exclusion of pregnancy-related disabilities is not
based upon a classification having a rational and substantial relationship to a legitimate
state purpose.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment