City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manhart (1977)
- Docket
- 76-1810
- Decided
- 1977-01-01
Summary
Question: Does a policy that requires women to make larger contributions to a company’s pension plan than men because women tend to live longer violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Is the company liable for the amount of the excess payment? Conclusion: Yes, no. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the 6-2 majority. The Court held that the company’s policy was based on aggregate numbers that are not necessarily true for individuals, which violates the Civil Rights Act prohibition of individual discrimination based purely on gender. Although the department argued that that the policy was based on longevity rather than gender, the Court held that many different factors influence longevity and the payment differential was solely gender-based. The Court held that the department was not liable for back pay because the potential that such a holding would influence other companies to change their policies did not offset the potential negative impact on the economy. In his opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote that the decision of the majority departed from the precedents set by Geduldig v. Aiello and General Electric Co. v. Gilbert without sufficient reasoning. He concurred in the part of the majority’s decision that held the department not liable for back pay. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger concurred in part and dissented in part. He argued that Congress did not intend the Civil Rights Act to impede a business’ ability to create policies based on statistically sound longevity data. Since any individual woman is statistically likely to live longer than any individual man, the policy did not discriminate against individuals solely on the basis of sex but rather based on the likelihood of longevity. He concurred in the majority’s decision that held the department not liable for back pay. Justice William H. Rehnquist joined the dissent. Justice Thurgood Marshall concurred in part and dissented in part. He concurred in the majority’s decision that held that the department’s policy violated the Civil Rights Act, but he argued that the department should be held liable for back pay. The district court held the department liable, and the majority’s decision did not find any flaws in the district court’s reasoning. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.