# General Electric Co. v. Gilbert

> Supreme Court of the United States · December 7, 1976 · 429 U.S. 125

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426617

## Case

- **Full name:** GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. GILBERT Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** December 7, 1976
- **Citations:** 429 U.S. 125; 1 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1046; 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 11,240; 13 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1657; 97 S. Ct. 401; 50 L. Ed. 2d 343; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 178
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stewart
- **Judges:** Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, Rehnquist, Stevens, Stewart
- **Cited by:** 968 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Reported superseded by statute, as recognized in International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement v. Johnson Controls, Inc. — not on the Supreme Court's list.
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426617

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that courts may give less weight to guidelines than to administrative regulations which Congress has declared shall have the force of law or to regulations which, under the enabling statute, may themselves supply the basis for imposition of liability
- holding that a similar benefits exclusion for pregnancy-related disability did not violate Title VII and reiterating that “exclusion of pregnancy from a disability-benefits plan providing general coverage is not a gender-based discrimination at all”
- concluding that pregnancy discrimination does not in itself constitute sex discrimination while interpreting Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, which at the time included language very similar to Florida’s current statute
- holding that the exclusion of pregnancy-related disabilities from the insurance plan did not violate Title VII even though the exclusion impacted one gender more than the other
- recognizing that “pregnancy-related disabilities constitute an additional risk, unique to women”

## Opinion text

Me. Justice Stewart,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court holding that General Electric’s exclusion of benefits for disability during pregnancy is not a per se violation of § 703 (a)(1) of Title VII, and that the respondents have failed to prove a discriminatory effect. Unlike my Brother Blackmun, I do not understand the opinion to question either Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 , specifically, or the significance generally of proving a discriminatory effect in a Title VII case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426617. Public record. Not legal advice.