Also known as:gender discriminatory · gender discriminate · gender discriminated · gender discriminating · sex discrimination · gender bias · sex bias
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Unconstitutional government action that intentionally classifies individuals on the basis of sex. Such classifications receive intermediate scrutiny and survive only when substantially related to an important governmental interest.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Veterans Preference Hiring
State officials adopted a hiring rule that awarded absolute preference to any veteran who passed a civil-service exam. Gerald Gibson, a highly qualified woman with no military service, ranked just below several male veterans and was passed over. She sued, claiming the rule was gender discrimination. The court upheld the rule because the preference was enacted to reward military service rather than to exclude women, even though it produced a disparate impact on female applicants.
Violence Against Women Act Challenge
A woman assaulted by her former husband sued the attacker in federal court under a federal civil remedy for gender-motivated violence. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing Congress lacked power to create the remedy. The court struck down the provision because the remedy regulated noneconomic, intrastate activity traditionally left to the states rather than addressing state-sponsored gender discrimination.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Dictionaries
United States v. Morrison529 U.S. 598 (2000)
Nursing School Admission Policy
A state nursing school admitted only women. Gavin Grant, a qualified male applicant, was rejected solely because of his sex. He sued, alleging the single-sex policy violated equal protection. The court invalidated the policy because the state failed to show an exceedingly persuasive justification for excluding men from a program that trained nurses for a profession open to both sexes.
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan458 U.S. 718 (1982)
Peremptory Jury Challenge
During jury selection in a criminal trial, the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove all female venire members. The defendant objected that the strikes were based on gender. The court sustained the objection and required the prosecutor to provide gender-neutral reasons for each strike, because purposeful exclusion of jurors on the basis of sex denies equal protection to both the defendant and the excluded jurors.
Batson v. Kentucky476 U.S. 79, 103 (1986)
Religious School District Creation
A state legislature created a special school district whose boundaries coincided exactly with a religious community that maintained separate gender roles in education. Parents outside the community challenged the statute as an establishment of religion that also produced gender discrimination by reinforcing sex-based educational segregation. The court invalidated the district because the deliberate alignment of political and religious boundaries lacked a secular purpose and effectively endorsed gender distinctions embedded in the community's practices.
Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet512 U.S. 687 (1994)
Medical School Admissions Quota
A public medical school reserved sixteen seats in each entering class for members of specified minority groups. Gabriel Gonzalez, a white male applicant with higher objective credentials than several admitted minority applicants, was rejected. He sued, claiming the quota was unconstitutional. The court held that the rigid numerical quota violated equal protection because it used race as a decisive factor rather than as one element in a flexible, individualized consideration of applicants.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke438 U.S. 265, 98 S. Ct. 2733, 57 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1978)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
Does a facially neutral law that disproportionately harms women automatically constitute gender discrimination?+
No. A facially neutral statute granting hiring preferences to veterans does not violate equal protection merely because it disadvantages women more than men. The plaintiff must prove that the adverse effect reflects an invidious, gender-based discriminatory purpose rather than a neutral goal such as rewarding military service.
Supporting sources
When does a law that treats husbands and wives differently amount to unconstitutional gender discrimination?+
A statute that makes only wives eligible for alimony is unconstitutional because it is not substantially related to an important governmental interest. The state must use gender-neutral criteria to address the economic needs of dependent spouses.
Supporting sources
Is the exclusion of pregnancy from a state disability program considered gender discrimination?+
No. A state disability insurance program that excludes normal pregnancy and childbirth does not create a gender classification. The classification is between pregnant and nonpregnant persons, so it does not amount to intentional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
Supporting sources
529 U.S. 598 (2000)Constitutional Law
…States' bias and deter future instances of discrimination in the state courts. As our cases have established, state-sponsored gender discrimination violates equal protection unless it " serves "important governmental objectives and . . . the discriminatory means employed" are "substantially related to the achievement of those…