Master First Supreme Court decision interpreting Title VII's sex discrimination provision, holding that employers cannot apply one hiring policy to women with young children and a different one to men with young children absent a valid BFOQ. with this comprehensive case brief.
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. is a landmark early Title VII case in which the Supreme Court first addressed sex discrimination in employment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The employer had a facially discriminatory policy: it refused to accept applications from women with pre-school-age children while accepting applications from men with pre-school-age children. The Court held that Title VII prohibits such differential treatment because it is discrimination "because of sex," unless the employer can carry the heavy burden of proving a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).
The decision is doctrinally significant for crystallizing the concept often called "sex-plus" discrimination—where an employer discriminates against a subclass of women (e.g., women with young children) but not the corresponding subclass of men (men with young children). Phillips confirms that such distinctions are still sex-based and unlawful under Title VII unless a narrow statutory exception applies. The case also underscores that BFOQ is an affirmative defense with a stringent standard and that stereotyped assumptions about caregiving or absenteeism cannot justify facially sex-based rules.
400 U.S. 542 (U.S. 1971) (per curiam)
Ida Phillips, a woman with several minor children including at least one of pre-school age, applied for an entry-level position at Martin Marietta Corporation's facility in Florida. She was informed that the company did not accept job applications from women with pre-school-age children. At the same time, the company did accept and hire men who had pre-school-age children for the same job category. Phillips filed a charge and then sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging unlawful sex discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for Martin Marietta, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, reasoning in essence that the employer did not discriminate against "women" as a class because it hired many women; rather, it only excluded women with pre-school children, which the court characterized as a permissible distinction. The employer also suggested that its policy was justified by concerns about absenteeism and reliability tied to childrearing responsibilities. Phillips sought Supreme Court review.
Whether, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may refuse to accept job applications from women with pre-school-age children while accepting applications from men with pre-school-age children, absent proof that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the position.
Title VII § 703(a)(1) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's sex. An employer may not maintain different hiring standards for similarly situated men and women. The sole statutory exception relevant here is the BFOQ defense, § 703(e)(1), which allows sex-based distinctions only where sex is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business. The BFOQ exception is narrow, and the employer bears the burden of proof.
An employer may not have one hiring policy for women with pre-school-age children and another for men with pre-school-age children; such a policy constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII unless the employer can prove that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. Because the record contained no findings on BFOQ, summary judgment for the employer was improper. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court, in a brief per curiam opinion, grounded its analysis in the text of Title VII. Section 703(a) prohibits discrimination against any individual "because of" that person's sex. A policy that excludes women with pre-school-age children while permitting men with pre-school-age children to apply is a facial sex-based classification: the determining factor is the applicant's sex combined with a characteristic (having young children) that is treated differently for women than for men. The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit's view that such a policy escapes Title VII scrutiny simply because the employer hires many women overall or because the policy can be framed as "sex-plus" rather than sex alone. Differential treatment of similarly situated men and women—here, parents of pre-schoolers—falls squarely within Title VII's prohibition. The Court also acknowledged Title VII's narrow BFOQ exception, § 703(e), emphasizing that it is the employer's burden to justify any sex-based qualification as reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. On the record before it, the Court found no findings or developed evidentiary basis regarding a BFOQ that might justify the distinction. It therefore reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded so the employer could, if it could, attempt to satisfy the stringent BFOQ standard. The Court's approach aligned with then-existing EEOC guidelines cautioning that employment policies may not impose different standards on men and women based on generalized assumptions about caregiving or availability. In short, Title VII requires equal consideration of "persons of like qualifications irrespective of their sex," and it does not permit employers to treat mothers of young children differently from fathers of young children based on stereotypes or unsupported generalizations. Only a demonstrated, job-specific, and narrowly tailored BFOQ could lawfully sustain such differential treatment, and no such showing had been made.
Phillips is the Supreme Court's first major foray into sex discrimination under Title VII and a foundational case for the "sex-plus" doctrine. It clarifies that an employer cannot evade Title VII by targeting a subset of women (e.g., mothers of preschoolers) while not imposing the same condition on similarly situated men. The case also reinforces two enduring features of Title VII litigation: (1) the primacy of equal treatment between comparably situated men and women, and (2) the narrow scope and employer's burden to prove a BFOQ. For law students, Phillips provides a clean, early example of disparate treatment based on sex and a template for analyzing facially discriminatory policies, comparators, and statutory defenses under Title VII.
"Sex-plus" discrimination occurs when an employer discriminates against a subclass of one sex defined by an additional characteristic (e.g., women with young children) but does not apply the same criterion to the other sex (men with young children). Phillips illustrates this because Martin Marietta excluded women with pre-school children while allowing men with pre-school children to apply. The Supreme Court confirmed that such policies are still discrimination "because of sex" under Title VII.
No. The Court did not order the employer to hire Phillips. It held that having different hiring policies for mothers and fathers of young children violates Title VII unless the employer can prove a valid BFOQ. The case was remanded to allow the employer to attempt to justify the policy under the narrow BFOQ exception, a demanding burden that is rarely met.
Under § 703(e)(1), an employer may defend a sex-based rule only by proving that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business. This is an affirmative defense with a narrow scope. Generalized assumptions or stereotypes (e.g., that mothers will be more absent) are insufficient; the employer must show a strong, job-specific necessity that cannot be met through sex-neutral means.
Phillips is a disparate treatment case. The policy explicitly treated similarly situated applicants differently based on sex (mothers versus fathers of young children). Disparate impact claims, by contrast, challenge facially neutral practices that disproportionately affect a protected group; here, the practice was not facially neutral.
While the decision is brief, the Court aligned its view with then-current EEOC guidelines, which cautioned against applying different standards to men and women based on assumptions about parental responsibilities or availability. Such guidance reinforced that Title VII generally prohibits differential treatment of mothers and fathers absent a valid BFOQ.
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. established that Title VII does not tolerate facially sex-based hiring rules that rely on stereotypes about caregiving or availability. By insisting on equal treatment for similarly situated men and women—here, parents of pre-school-age children—the Court set a clear baseline for evaluating sex discrimination claims.
Equally important, Phillips clarifies that the BFOQ exception is narrow and that employers bear the burden of proving it with specific, job-related evidence. For law students and practitioners, the case offers a concise yet powerful framework for analyzing facial discrimination, comparators, and statutory defenses under Title VII, and it remains a touchstone in modern employment discrimination law.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →