Also known as: sex discriminate · sex discriminated · sex discriminating · gender discrimination · discrimination on the basis of sex
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Differential treatment of individuals based on sex or gender. Such treatment violates equal protection when a classification is not substantially related to an important governmental interest. A facially neutral rule that produces only a disparate impact does not violate equal protection absent proof of discriminatory purpose.
Sentinel Security adopts a facially neutral policy granting hiring preference to veterans for security guard positions. Scott Summers, a male veteran, receives the job over Sophia Singh, a highly qualified female non-veteran. Singh sues claiming sex discrimination. The court holds that the policy does not violate equal protection because its purpose is to benefit veterans rather than to discriminate against women.
A federal statute provides automatic dependency benefits only to wives of service members. Steven Silva, a male service member, is denied benefits for his dependent husband. Silva challenges the statute as sex discrimination. The court strikes it down because the gender-based classification is not substantially related to an important governmental interest.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A state school funding system allocates resources according to local property taxes. Sofia Stern, a female student in a low-wealth district, alleges the system perpetuates sex discrimination because female-headed households predominate in poorer areas. The court rejects the claim, applying rational-basis review to the economic classification rather than heightened scrutiny for sex.
A federal statute computes old-age benefits using a more favorable formula for women wage earners. Samuel Soto, a male retiree, receives a lower monthly payment than a similarly situated female colleague. Soto sues alleging sex discrimination. The court upholds the formula as a permissible remedial measure addressing past economic disadvantages faced by women.
Sylvia Santos and other female employees at Southland Foods allege that subjective promotion criteria systematically disadvantage women. They seek to certify a nationwide class. The court denies certification because the plaintiffs fail to identify a common policy of intentional sex discrimination sufficient to satisfy commonality requirements.
Sophia Singh applies for partnership at Summit Bank. Partners criticize her aggressive style as unfeminine while praising identical behavior in male candidates. Singh is denied promotion. The court finds that sex stereotyping played a motivating role and shifts the burden to the firm to prove it would have made the same decision absent the discriminatory motive.
No. Disparate impact alone is insufficient. The claimant must prove that the policy was adopted with the purpose of discriminating against women rather than to benefit veterans.
A classification violates equal protection when it is not substantially related to an important governmental interest. Statutes that automatically favor one sex over the other without an exceedingly persuasive justification are unconstitutional.
No. The classification is between pregnant and nonpregnant persons, not between men and women, and therefore does not constitute a gender classification for equal protection purposes.
…sex-based classifications is clearly justified. There can be no doubt that our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination.[^maj-13] Traditionally, such discrimination was rationalized by an attitude of “romantic paternalism” which, in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage. Indeed, this…