# 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/9426618

## 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 Blackmun
- **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- **Yellow flag:** Reported superseded by statute, as recognized in International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement v. Johnson Controls, Inc. — not on the Supreme Court's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/9426618

## 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

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
concurring in part.
I join the judgment of the Court and concur in its opinion insofar as it holds (a) that General Electric’s exclusion of disability due to pregnancy is not, per se, a violation of § 703 (a)(1) of Title VII; (b) that the plaintiffs in this case therefore had at least the burden of proving discriminatory effect; and (c) that they failed in that proof. I do not join any inference or suggestion in the Court’s opinion — if any such inference or suggestion is there — that effect may never be a controlling factor in a Title VII case, or that Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 (1971), is no longer good law.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426618. Public record. Not legal advice.