417 U.S. 484 (1974)
California has administered a disability insurance system for almost 30 years.1 It pays benefits to persons in private employment who are temporarily unable to work because of disability not covered by workers' compensation.2 The system is funded entirely from contributions deducted from the wages of participating employees.3 The rate is one percent of salary up to an annual maximum of $85.4 Those contributions are placed in the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund.5 The fund is established as a special trust fund within the state treasury.6
An individual becomes eligible for benefits after contributing one percent of a minimum income of $300 during a one-year base period.7 The individual can then receive a weekly benefit amount between $25 and $105 for up to 26 weeks.8 Additional hospital benefits of $12 per day are available.9 There is an eight-day waiting period unless the employee is hospitalized.10
Section 2626 of the California Unemployment Insurance Code defines disability to include mental or physical illness and injury.11 It expressly excludes from coverage 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.12 Appellant Geduldig, as Director of the California Department of Human Resources Development, administers the program.13 He applies the exclusion to bar payment of benefits for any disability resulting from pregnancy.14
Appellees Carolyn Aiello, Augustina Armendariz, Elizabeth Johnson, and Jacqueline Jaramillo each paid sufficient amounts into the Disability Fund to be eligible for benefits.15 Aiello, Armendariz, and Johnson suffered employment disabilities attributable to abnormal complications encountered during their pregnancies.16 Jaramillo experienced a normal pregnancy that was the sole cause of her disability.17 All four were ruled ineligible for benefits under the pregnancy exclusion and sued to enjoin its enforcement.18
The appellees' consolidated actions were heard by a three-judge federal district court.19 The court granted summary judgment holding that the exclusion violates the Equal Protection Clause and enjoined its continued enforcement.20 Shortly before that decision, the California Court of Appeal in Rentzer v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board construed section 2626 to preclude benefits only for disability accompanying normal pregnancy.21 The appellant then issued administrative guidelines excluding only maternity benefits for normal delivery and recuperation and paid the claims of Aiello, Armendariz, and Johnson.22
Only appellee Jaramillo continues to have a live controversy.23 Her disability stemmed solely from normal pregnancy and childbirth.24 The District Court denied the appellant's motion for reconsideration in light of Rentzer.25 The appellant appealed.26 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction after granting a stay of the district court's judgment.27
Whether the California disability insurance program's exclusion of coverage for disabilities resulting from normal pregnancy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?28
Under the Equal Protection Clause a state may structure a social welfare insurance program to cover selected risks without insuring all possible disabilities so long as the classification is rationally supportable.29 The state may address problems incrementally without being required to solve every aspect at once.30
No. The California program is funded solely by one-percent employee contributions placed in the Disability Fund.31 It has been self-supporting without drawing on general state revenues.32 The exclusion of normal pregnancy disabilities is rationally related to the state's legitimate interests in preserving the solvency of the fund.33 It avoids cost increases estimated at over $100 million annually that would require higher contribution rates or state subsidies.34
The classification does not constitute invidious gender discrimination because the program provides equivalent protection to all participants.35 It excludes a particular physical condition rather than denying eligibility on the basis of sex.36
The California disability insurance program's exclusion of coverage for disabilities resulting from normal pregnancy does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.37
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan argued that the exclusion creates a gender-based classification subject to strict scrutiny.38 It singles out a disability peculiar to women for less favorable treatment while compensating men for all disabilities including those unique to their sex.39 He maintained that the state's interest in preserving fiscal integrity cannot justify an invidious classification under strict scrutiny.40
Less drastic means such as modest increases in the contribution rate were available to accommodate the added costs without using a suspect classification.41