author:
Justice Stevens
      Justice Rehnquist,

text:
    CHARDON et al. v. FUMERO SOTO et al.
    No. 82-271.
    Argued March 23, 1983
    Decided June 20, 1983

      Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which White and Powell, JJ., joined, post, p. 663.

      John G. DeGooyer argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were K. Martin Worthy, Stephen L. Humphrey, Hector Reichard De Cardona, and Eduardo Castillo Blanco.

      Sheldon H. Nahmod argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Jaime R. Nadal Arcelay.

   Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners, Puerto Rican educational officials, demoted respondents from nontenured supervisory positions to teaching or lower-level administrative posts in the public school system because of respondents’ political affiliations. Shortly before Puerto Rico’s 1-year statute of limitations would have expired, a class action was filed against petitioners on respondents’ behalf under 42 U. S. C. §1983. Subsequently class certification was denied because the class was not sufficiently numerous. The parties agree that the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of the §1983 class action, but they disagree as to the effect of the tolling. Did the 1-year period begin to run anew when class certification was denied, or was it merely suspended during the pendency of the class action? We must decide whether the answer is provided by Puerto Rican law or by federal law.

On or after June 17, 1977, each of the 36 respondents received a written notice of demotion. On Monday, June 19, 1978, Jose Ortiz Rivera, suing on behalf of respondents and various other demoted and discharged employees, filed a class action against petitioners asserting claims under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and under certain Puerto Rican statutes. On August 21, 1978, the District Court denied class certification on the ground that the membership of the class was not so numerous that joinder was impracticable. App. 16a-17a. In January 1979, the respondents and a number of other unnamed class members filed individual actions under §1983 asserting the same constitutional claim that Ortiz Rivera had previously advanced on their behalf. App. 2a-4a. Each of respondents’ individual actions was filed more than one year after the claims accrued, even excluding the period during which the class action was pending, but less than one year after the denial of class certification. Thus, if the running of the limitations period was merely suspended by the class action, then respondents’ actions are time-barred. If it began to run anew, these actions are timely.

Fifty-five individual actions were consolidated for trial on the liability issue in January 1981. The jury found against petitioners, and the District Court entered judgment ordering reinstatement with backpay. 514 F. Supp. 339 (PR 1981); App. 108a-111a, 114a-116a, 121a-124a. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the remedy in some respects, reversing the award of backpay on Eleventh Amendment grounds and ordering some of the individual cases dismissed as time-barred. It rejected petitioners’ argument that the claims of the 36 respondents were barred by the statute of limitations. Rivera Fernandez v. Chardon, 681 F. 2d 42 (CA1 1982); App. 158a.

Because there is no federal statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 claims, the Court of Appeals looked to Puerto Rican law to determine what the limitations period is, whether that period was tolled, and the effect of the tolling. The parties do not dispute the court’s conclusion that civil rights actions are governed by the 1-year period specified in P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 31, §5298(2) (1968). Nor do petitioners challenge the court’s conclusion that the statute was tolled during the pendency of the Rivera class action, although they do disagree with the court’s reasons.

The Court of Appeals noted that in Puerto Rico it is well settled that the filing of an action on behalf of a party tolls the statute with regard to that party’s identical causes of action. P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 31, § 5303 (1968). It recognized, however, that the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico had not ruled on the question whether a class action would toll the statute for identical claims of the unnamed plaintiffs. It noted that Puerto Rico had modeled its class-action procedures after the federal practice, and that in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U. S. 538 (1974), this Court had interpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to permit a federal statute of limitations to be tolled between the filing of an asserted class action and the denial of class certification. It concluded that, as a matter of Puerto Rican law, the Puerto Rican Supreme Court would also hold that the statute of limitations was tolled as to unnamed plaintiffs during the pendency of a class action. 681 F. 2d, at 50.

In deciding what effect the tolling would have, however, the court did not apply the same rule as this Court had applied in American Pipe. In that case the controlling limitations period was established by a federal statute, the Clayton Act, that expressly provided for suspension when the period was tolled, 414 U. S., at 560-561. In this § 1983 case, however, the Court of Appeals concluded that Puerto Rican law determined the length of the applicable statute of limitations, governed whether the limitations period would be tolled during the pendency of the class action, and established the effect of the tolling. Under the law of Puerto Rico the statute of limitations begins to run anew when tolling ceases; the plaintiff benefits from the full length of the applicable limitations period. See Feliciano v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth., 93 P. R. R. 638, 644 (1966); Heirs of Gorbea v. Portilla, 46 P. R. R. 279, 284 (1934). Recognizing the difference between the common-law rule of suspension and the Puerto Rican “running-anew rule,” the Court of Appeals concluded that applying the local rule would not violate any federal policy. The court further reasoned that its conclusion was consistent with the policies of repose and federalism that this Court had identified in its decisions addressing statute of limitations questions. 681 F. 2d, at 50. We granted certio-rari. 459 U. S. 987 (1982).

M

The federal civil rights statutes do not provide for a specific statute of limitations, establish rules regarding the tolling of the limitations period, or prescribe the effect of tolling. Under 42 U. S. C. § 1988, the federal cause of action is governed by appropriate “laws of the United States,” but if such laws are unsuitable or inadequate, state-law rules are borrowed unless a particular state rule is “inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Petitioners argue that American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, supra, established a federal rule of decision that requires suspension rather than renewal whenever a class action in federal court tolls the statute of limitations. Accordingly, they contend that neither § 1988 nor our recent decision in Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U. S. 478 (1980), justified the Court of Appeals’ application of the Puerto Rican renewal rule. This argument, by reading more into our decision in American Pipe than the Court actually decided, fails to give full effect to Tomanio.

We begin by restating briefly the principles set forth in Board of Regents v. Tomanio. In that case the Court held that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim was barred by New York’s 3-year statute of limitations, because New York law did not provide for tolling of the statute during the pendency of a related, but independent cause of action. Indeed, “resolution of that issue [was] virtually foreordained in favor of petitioners by our prior cases.” 446 U. S., at 480. Under the reasoning of Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U. S. 584 (1978); Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454 (1975); and Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961), the Court explained, federal courts were “obligated not only to apply the analogous New York statute of limitations to respondent’s federal constitutional claims, but also to apply the New York rule for tolling that statute of limitations.” 446 U. S., at 483.

We noted that in 42 U. S. C. § 1988 Congress had plainly instructed the federal courts to refer to state law when federal law provides no rule of decision for actions brought under § 1983, id., at 484. Because the “chronological length of the limitation period is interrelated with provisions regarding tolling,” we reasoned that the practice of “borrowing” state statutes of limitations “logically include[s] rules of tolling.” Id., at 485. Finally, we concluded that no federal policy — deterrence, compensation, uniformity, or federalism — was offended by the application of state tolling rules. In light of Congress’ willingness to rely on state statutes of limitations in civil rights actions, we specifically rejected the argument that the federal interest in uniformity justified displacement of state tolling rules.

r — I HH

It is true, as petitioners argue, that Tomanio did not involve a class action, nor did it present any claim that an established federal rule of decision governed the tolling of the statute of limitations, making resort to state law unnecessary. Petitioners contend that in American Pipe this Court “established a uniform federal procedural rule applicable to class actions brought in the federal courts.” Brief for Petitioners 13. In petitioners’ view, that federal rule encompasses two requirements: (1) the statute of limitations is tolled by the filing of an asserted class action, and (2) if class certification is subsequently denied because the asserted class is insufficiently numerous, then the limitations period has merely been suspended; it does not begin to run anew. Petitioners, respondents, and the Court of Appeals all agree that the statute of limitations was tolled during the period between the filing of Jose Ortiz Rivera’s action on behalf of the class on June 19,1978, and the District Court’s denial of class certification on August 21, 1978. We must examine the reasoning of American Pipe, however, to determine whether that decision embodies the second requirement that petitioners urge us to recognize.

In American Pipe the Court held that the antitrust treble-damages claims asserted by a group of municipalities and other public agencies in Utah were not time-barred. Although the claims had arisen in the early 1960’s, they were not foreclosed by the 4-year period of limitations prescribed in §4B of the Clayton Act because the statute had been tolled on three successive occasions: from March 10, 1964, to June 19, 1964, while federal criminal charges were pending against the defendants; from June 23,1964, until May 24,1968, while a civil injunctive proceeding filed by the Federal Government was pending; and from May 13,1969, until December 4,1969, while a class action brought by the State of Utah was pending. During the two earlier periods when Federal Government litigation was pending, and for one year thereafter, the Clayton Act expressly provided for tolling of the uniform federal statute of limitations. The Court held that the subsequent class action had also tolled the statute for the claims of the unnamed plaintiffs until class certification was denied.

The Court reasoned that, under the circumstances, the unnamed plaintiffs should be treated as though they had been named plaintiffs during the pendency of the class action. Otherwise, members of a class would have an incentive to protect their interests by intervening in the class action as named plaintiffs prior to the decision on class certification — a “needless duplication of motions” that would “deprive Rule 23 class actions of the efficiency and economy of litigation which is a principal purpose of the procedure.” 414 U. S., at 553-554; see id., at 555-556. The Court explained that tolling the limitations period during the pendency of an antitrust class action did not impair the policies underlying statutes of limitations. Id., at 554-555.

In order to determine “the precise effect the commencement of the class action had on the relevant limitation period,” the Court referred to the terms of the underlying statute of limitations. It stated that § 5(b) of the Clayton Act suspends the statute of limitations during the pendency of Federal Government antitrust litigation based on the same subject matter. By analogy, the Court concluded that suspension would also be appropriate during the pendency of an asserted federal class action prior to denial of certification. Id., at 560-561. Since suspension was adequate to preserve all of the plaintiffs’ claims — they were filed only eight days after the denial of class certification — there was no need to consider whether any different rule might have been appropriate.

In American Pipe, federal law defined the basic limitations period, federal procedural policies supported the tolling of the statute during the pendency of the class action, and a particular federal statute provided the basis for deciding that the tolling had the effect of suspending the limitations period. No question of state law was presented. In a § 1983 action, however, Congress has specifically directed the courts, in the absence of controlling federal law, to apply state statutes of limitations and state tolling rules unless they are “inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 42 U. S. C. § 1988. American Pipe does not answer the question whether, in a § 1983 case in which the filing of a class action has tolled the statute of limitations until class certification is denied, the tolling effect is suspension rather than renewal or extension of the period. American Pipe simply asserts a federal interest in assuring the efficiency and economy of the class-action procedure. After class certification is denied, that federal interest is vindicated as long as each unnamed plaintiff is given as much time to intervene or file a separate action as he would have under a state savings statute applicable to a party whose action has been dismissed for reasons unrelated to the merits, or, in the absence of a statute, the time provided under the most closely analogous state tolling statute.

The reasoning of American Pipe is thus compatible with the rationale of Tomanio, and the Court of Appeals' decision on the tolling effect of the class action in this case is consistent with both. The Court of Appeals applied the Puerto Rican rule that, after tolling comes to an end, the statute of limitations begins to run anew. Since the application of this state-law rule gives unnamed class members the same protection as if they had filed actions in their own names which were subsequently dismissed, the federal interest set forth in American Pipe is fully protected.

The Court of Appeals correctly rejected the argument that American Pipe establishes a uniform federal rule of decision that mandates suspension rather than renewal whenever a federal class action tolls a statute of limitations. As we wrote in Robertson v. Wegmann, “§ 1988 quite clearly instructs us to refer to state statutes; it does not say that state law is to be accepted or rejected based solely on which side is advantaged thereby.” 486 U. S., at 593. Congress has decided that § 1983 class actions brought in different States, like individual actions under § 1983, will be governed by differing statutes of limitations and differing rules regarding tolling and tolling effect unless those state rules are inconsistent with federal law. Until Congress enacts a federal statute of limitations to govern § 1983 litigation, comparable to the statute it ultimately enacted to solve the analogous problems presented by borrowing state law in federal antitrust litigation, federal courts must continue the practice of “limitations borrowing” outlined in Tomanio.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Justice Rehnquist,

with whom Justice White and Justice Powell join,

dissenting.

Title 42 U. S. C. § 1988 embodies a congressional determination that the laws of the several States provide the most suitable procedural and remedial rules for application in actions brought under the federal civil rights laws. In the words of the statute, “in all cases [brought under the federal civil rights laws] where [federal laws] are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held . . . shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause . . . .”

We frequently have recognized “the generally interstitial character of federal law,” Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1, 7 (1962). Because of this, federal courts frequently must look to “the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court” is situated. If, however, there is federal law “adapted to the object” of the civil rights laws, § 1988 commands that federal courts apply that law in § 1983 actions.

The question in this case is whether there is any federal rule of law applicable to the tolling of limitations periods during the pendency of a class action brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. If there is, then we must depart from the general rule of reference to state law in actions brought under the civil rights laws. This inquiry turns principally on the meaning of our decision in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U. S. 538 (1974). While the Court adopts a plausible, albeit narrow, reading of the opinion in that case, I believe the opinion is more fairly read in a somewhat broader manner. Adopting this construction, I conclude that the decision recognizes a federal rule of tolling applicable to class actions brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and that this rule is made applicable by § 1988 to claims brought under § 1983.

In American Pipe the Court rejected the claim that antitrust claims brought by various Utah .public agencies and municipalities was barred by the 4-year limitations period of §4B of the Clayton Act, reasoning that the running of this period had been tolled on three occasions. As to two of these occasions, involving periods during which federal litigation was pending, the Court’s reasoning simply applied § 5(b) of the Clayton Act. Section 5(b) explicitly addressed the effect of pending federal litigation, stating unambiguously that “[w]henever any civil or criminal proceeding is instituted by the United States to prevent, restrain, or punish violations of any of the antitrust laws, . . . the running of the statute of limitations in respect to every private right of action arising under said laws . . . shall be suspended during the pend-ency thereof and for one year thereafter.” 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 16(i). The first two periods in which American Pipe held that § 4B had been tolled followed simply from a straightforward application of § 5(b).

As to the third period in which the limitations period was found to be tolled, however, the Clayton Act was utterly silent. The period in question was one in which a class action brought by the State of Utah had been pending. The question in American Pipe was whether the pendency of this class action warranted tolling of the Clayton Act’s limitations period as to unnamed plaintiffs in the class. As noted previously, the Clayton Act provided not the slightest guidance on the question whether the pendency of the class action should have had a tolling effect.

Despite the silence of the Clayton Act, the Court concluded that § 4B had been tolled. Since the Clayton Act plainly did not address the question before it, and since the Court made no reference at all to state law, the source of the tolling rule applied by the Court was necessarily Rule 23. Any doubt as to this fact is removed by the Court’s lengthy discussion of the history, purposes, and intent of the Rule. Likewise, our subsequent decisions have reflected this understanding of the basis for the Court’s decision in American Pipe. See, e. g., Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454, 467, n. 12 (1975) (“In the light of the history of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 and the purposes of litigatory efficiency served by class actions, we concluded that the prior filing had a tolling effect”).

In interpreting Rule 23 to contain a rule that, during the pendency of a class action, underlying statutes of limitations would be tolled as to individual class members, the Court also addressed the more general question of what effect a decision that the class action could not properly be maintained would have on the tolling of the limitations period. Again, reflecting the fact that it was fashioning a general federal tolling rule grounded on Rule 23, the Court stated:

“We are convinced that the rule most consistent with federal class action procedure must be that the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.” 414 U. S., at 554 (emphasis added).

There can be little question but that the Court fashioned a rule “consistent with federal class action procedure” requiring suspension of periods of limitation during the pendency of class actions. To be sure, the Court alluded to the fact that § 5(b) of the Clayton Act provided for “suspension” of the tolling period, rather than some other effect, but the Court rightly did not rely solely on this provision — which admittedly was entirely inapplicable in the case before it — in fashioning its general rule of tolling under Rule 23. Rather, it spoke more broadly, stating that the “concept” in § 5(b) requires the conclusion that a pending class action “suspendís] the running of the limitation period.” Id., at 561 (emphasis added). Since there is a federal rule of tolling in the special area of class actions, this rule should be applied.

The Court today studiously ignores the foregoing statements from American Pipe, as well as the clear inapplicability of § 5(b) to the question decided in American Pipe. Instead, it offers the argument that “[s]ince suspension was adequate [in American Pipe] to preserve all of the plaintiffs’ claims . . . there was no need to consider whether any different rule might have been appropriate.” Ante, at 660. The more orthodox inquiry, however, would seem to be what the Court actually decided then, not what we now think it needed to decide. And, as the discussion above plainly demonstrates, American Pipe concluded that Rule 23 contains a tolling rule that suspends (but does nothing more) the running of limitations periods during the pendency of class actions.

This determination that the federal rule under Rule 23 is that the pendency of a class action simply suspends the running of a statute of limitations is not the least bit unusual. Indeed, in many areas of federal law mere suspension is the rule. Moreover, in areas aside from class actions, the Court has recognized that federal tolling rules apply to state statutes of limitations. See, e. g., Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392 (1946) (general federal principles of equity must be applied by federal courts in actions involving federal claims, even where state statutes of limitations are borrowed).

The Court is apparently well aware that by rejecting the claim that Rule 23 reflects a uniform federal tolling rule it encourages needless litigation regarding what state tolling rule applies. Indeed, in this case the Court of Appeals frankly admitted that “there is no discernible state rule” to be applied. Fernandez v. Chardon, 681 F. 2d 42, 50 (CA1 1982). In other situations, more than one state rule may seem applicable. It is scarcely a desirable state of affairs for federal courts to spend their time deciding how state courts might decide state tolling rules operate. These concerns are particularly acute owing to the fact that the question at issue is what statute of limitations ought to be applied. Few areas of the law stand in greater need of firmly defined, easily applied rules than does the subject of periods of limitations. A single, uniform federal rule of tolling would provide desirable certainty to both plaintiffs and defendants in § 1983 class actions.

Finally, it is useful to consider the application of the Court’s analysis in a situation not far removed from the present case. If the law of a particular State was that the pendency of a class action did not toll the statute of limitations as to unnamed class members, there seems little question but that the federal rule of American Pipe would nonetheless be applicable. Having tolled the running of the applicable state statute of limitations, the federal court would be required to decide what effect denial of class certification would have. The logical source of law, of course, would be the general federal rule, expressed in American Pipe and applied to toll the running of the period in the first place. The Court, however, would apparently have the trial judge look to state law. Such a course would obviously be more than a little ironic — the inquiry would appear to be, if state law did have a class-action tolling rule, which it does not, what would state law say with respect to one aspect of that rule’s effect? Such an inquiry would be more appropriate in Alice in Wonderland than as a serious judicial undertaking.

Because the Court partially rejects a rule of law that American Pipe plainly set forth, because it reaches a result that can only encourage needless litigation and uncertainty, and because its analysis leads to anomalous results, I respectfully dissent.

       This opinion uses the word “tolling” to mean that, during the relevant period, the statute of limitations ceases to run. “Tolling effect” refers to the method of calculating the amount of time available to file suit after tolling has ended. The statute of limitations might merely be suspended; if so, the plaintiff must file within the amount of time left in the limitations period. If the limitations period is renewed, then the plaintiff has the benefit of a new period as long as the original. It is also possible to establish a fixed period such as six months or one year during which the plaintiff may file suit, without regard to the length of the original limitations period or the amount of time left when tolling began.

       Thirty-seven respondents were named in the petition for writ of certio-rari. Questions 1 and 2 dealt with the status of 36 persons who had been unnamed plaintiffs in the class action filed by Jose Ortiz Rivera. Question 3 addressed the timeliness of Ortiz Rivera's filing. This Court limited its grant to Questions 1 and 2, 459 U. S. 987 (1982), which have no bearing on Ortiz Rivera’s subsequent individual action. Since the petition was denied as to Question 3, Ortiz Rivera is not a respondent at this stage of the case, Brief for Petitioners 4, n. 2; the Court of Appeals has issued its mandate with respect to his ease.

       A number of companion cases, all involving plaintiffs who had received notices of demotion or discharge prior to June 19, 1977, were also filed in January 1979. The District Court dismissed this group of complaints as untimely, but the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that their causes of action had not accrued when they received notice, only when their demotions or discharges became effective. Rivera Fernandez v. Chardon, 648 F. 2d 765 (CA1 1981). That holding was, in turn, reversed by this Court after the decision in Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U. S. 250 (1980). See Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U. S. 6 (1981).

       For 28 of the respondents, who received notice on or after June 19, 1977, there is no dispute that the 1-year limitations period had not yet expired when the class action was filed on Monday, June 19, 1978. The other eight respondents received notice on June 17,1977, a date more than a calendar year prior to June 19, 1978. In its initial judgment, the Court of Appeals ordered dismissal of these eight cases. App. 156a-157a. On petition for modification of judgment, the respondents argued that, because Saturday, June 17, and Sunday, June 18,1978, are excluded from computation under Puerto Rican law, the filing of the class action on Monday, June 19, was timely for those eight respondents. Id., at 158a. The Court of Appeals modified its judgment accordingly, and explained its denial of rehearing on that issue by referring to Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. App. 161a. Neither the source of applicable law nor the merits of the issue is before us for decision. Tr. of Oral Arg. 4.

       The correctness of this interpretation of Puerto Rican law is not before us. Id., at 18. In any event, in “dealing with issues of state law that enter into judgments of federal courts, we are hesitant to overrule decisions by federal courts skilled in the law of particular states unless their conclusions are shown to be unreasonable.” Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472, 486-487 (1949), quoted in Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 346, n. 10 (1976).

       Petitioners do not question this proposition of Puerto Rican law. Tr. of Oral Arg. 10.

         Title 42 U. S. C. § 1988 provides:
      “[The federal civil rights statutes] shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause . . .

       We quoted the following passage from Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454, 463-464 (1975):
      “Any period of limitation ... is understood fully only in the context of the various circumstances that suspend it from running against a particular cause of action. Although any statute of limitations is necessarily arbitrary, the length of the period allowed for instituting suit inevitably reflects a value judgment concerning the point at which the interests in favor of protecting valid claims are outweighed by the interests in prohibiting the prosecution of stale ones. In virtually all statutes of limitations the chronological length of the limitation period is interrelated with provisions regarding tolling, revival, and questions of application. In borrowing a state period of limitation for application to a federal cause of action, a federal court is relying on the State’s wisdom in setting a limit, and exceptions thereto, on the prosecution of a closely analogous claim.” 446 U. S., at 485-486; see also id., at 487-488.

       We quoted the following passage from Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U. S. 584, 594, n. 11 (1978):
      “[WJhatever the value of nationwide uniformity in areas of civil rights enforcement where Congress has not spoken, in the areas to which § 1988 is applicable Congress has provided direction, indicating that state law will often provide the content of the federal remedial rule. This statutory reliance on state law obviously means that there will not be nationwide uniformity on these issues.” 446 U. S., at 489.

       Brief for Petitioners 12-15; Reply Brief for Petitioners 1-2; Brief for Respondents 6-9, 17; 681 F. 2d, at 49; see supra, at 654.

       Section 4B of the Clayton Act, 69 Stat. 283, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 15b, provides in pertinent part as follows:
      “Any action to enforce any cause of action [under the antitrust laws] shall be forever barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued.”

       Section 5(b) of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 16(i), provides:
      “Whenever any civil or criminal proceeding is instituted by the United States to prevent, restrain, or punish violations of any of the antitrust laws, ... the running of the statute of limitations in respect to every private or State right of action arising under said laws and based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in said proceeding shall be suspended during the pendency thereof and for one year thereafter . . . .”

       Although some federal statutes provide for suspension, see post, at 666, and n. 2, other statutes establish a variety of different tolling effects. See, e. g., 12 U. S. C. § 1728(c) (actions against Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation for payment of insurance claims; 3-year limitations period from date of default, unless conservator of the insured institution first recognizes and then denies the validity of a claim, in which event the action may be brought within two years of denial); 15 U. S. C. § 16(i), see n. 12, supra (private actions under antitrust laws); 15 U. S. C. § 714b(e)(2) (actions against Commodity Credit Corporation; 6-year limitations period, unless the plaintiff has been under legal disability or beyond the seas at the time the right accrued, in which case the suit must be brought within three years after the disability ceases or within six years after the accrual of the cause of action, whichever is longer); 15 U. S. C. § 1691e(f) (actions under Equal Credit Opportunity Act; 2-year limitations period, except that if an agency enforcement action or suit by the Attorney General is filed during that period, any applicant who has been a victim of the alleged discrimination may bring suit not later than one year after the commencement of that action); 28 U. S. C. § 2415(e) (various limitations periods for actions for money damages and recovery of debts brought by the United States; if any such action is timely filed and dismissed without prejudice, the action may be recommenced within one year after such dismissal, regardless of whether the action would otherwise then be time-barred); 46 U. S. C. § 1292 (suits on claims for war risk insurance; 2-year limitations period, but if an administrative claim is filed, the period is suspended until the claim is administratively denied and for 60 days thereafter); 49 U. S. C. §§ 16(3)(c), (d) (actions against railroads for overcharges; 3-year limitations period, but if claim for the overcharge has been presented in writing to the carrier within the limitations period, the period for bringing suit is extended to include six months from the time the carrier gives notice in writing to the claimant disallowing the claim, and if the carrier brings suit to recover charges in respect of the same transportation service during the limitations period, the limitations period is extended to include 90 days from the time such action is begun); 49 U. S. C. §§ 908(f)(1)(C), (D) (same provision with regard to common carriers by water).

         The benefit of tolling applies whether an unnamed plaintiff intervenes in the named plaintiff’s suit after denial of class certification or files his or her own separate action. Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, ante, p. 345.

       On the other hand, if a party received the benefit of Puerto Rico’s renewal rule only by intervening as a named plaintiff in the class action before the court's decision whether to certify the class, but was limited to suspension if he remained an unnamed class member, he would have an incentive to protect his interests by creating the very multiplicity and needless duplication against which the Court warned in American Pipe.

       Act of July 7, 1955, ch. 283, §§ 1 and 2, 69 Stat. 283. See H. R. Rep. No. 422, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1955) (“Heretofore, such actions have been controlled by State law on the subject, leading to widespread variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to the time within which an injured party may institute such a suit, as well as considerable confusion in ascertaining the applicable State law”); S. Rep. No. 619, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1955) (“It is one of the primary purposes of this bill to put an end to the confusion and discrimination present under existing law where local statutes of limitations are made applicable to rights granted under our Federal laws”); id., at 7 (letter from Attorney General) (“Currently, private antitrust action is needlessly complicated by issues such as which State’s statute of limitations apply, the events from which such statute run[s], and the circumstances under which it may be [tolled]. Finally, varying periods of limitation encourage ‘forum-shopping’ and seem ill-suited for enforcement of a uniform Federal policy”).

       The Court correctly recognizes that Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U. S. 478 (1980), is distinguishable. That case did not involve a class action, and thus the Court had no occasion to consider whether Rule 23 creates a federal tolling rule, or the character of that rule. Hence, there was “a void ... in federal statutory law,” id., at 483, and state law was called upon to fill the void. Owing to American Pipe and its interpretation of Rule 28, there is no comparable void in this case, and federal law is therefore applicable.

       See, e.g., 5 U. S. C. § 8122(d) (limitations period does not “run against an incompetent individual while he is incompetent”); 19 U. S. C. § 1621 (time in which violator is outside Nation “shall not be reckoned within this period of limitation”); 22 U. S. C. § 817(c) (suspension of limitations periods in malpractice actions by certain federal employees during pendency of specified suits); 28 U. S. C. § 1498 (copyright claims by Government employees suspended during certain periods); 29 U. S. C. § 255(d) (limitations period of Portal-to-Portal Pay Act “shall be deemed suspended” in certain instances); 45 U. S. C. § 56 (period of limitations under Federal Employers’ Liability Act; Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U. S. 424 (1965)); 46 U. S. C. § 745 (limitations period suspended during pendency of administrative actions; see Northern Metal Co. v. United States, 350 F. 2d 833 (CA3 1965); Kinman v. United States, 139 F. Supp. 925 (ND Cal. 1956)); 50 U. S. C. App. § 33 (in computing expired time “there shall be excluded” time when specified actions were pending). Cf. Hanger v. Abbott, 6 Wall. 532 (1868) (suspension of state statute of limitations).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Stevens Justice Rehnquist,

license: Public Domain

text:
    NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
    No. 82-411.
    Argued April 27, 1983
    Decided June 20, 1983

      Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Powell, J., joined, post, p. 685.

      Andrew M. Kramer argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Gerald D. Skoning and Deborah Crandall.

      Harriet S. Shapiro argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Lee, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Philip B. Sklover, and Vella M. Fink.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Stephen A. Bokat and Cynthia Wicker for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States; by Frederick T. Shea, Robert H. McRoberts, Sr., John F. Gibbons, and Thomas C. Walsh for Emerson Electric Co.; by Benjamin W. Boley and Michael S. Giannotto for the National Railway Labor Conference; and by Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, and Lorence L. Kessler for the Equal Employment Advisory Council.
      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Lawrence B. Trygstad and Richard J. Schwab for the United Teachers-Los Angeles; by Judith L. Lichtman and Judith E. Schaeffer for the American Association of University Women et al.; and by J. Albert Woll, Marsha S. Berzon, Laurence Gold, Bernard Kleiman, Carl Frankel, Carole W. Wilson, and Winn Newman for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations et al.

   Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1978 Congress decided to overrule our decision in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976), by amending Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “to prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.” On the effective date of the Act, petitioner amended its health insurance plan to provide its female employees with hospitalization benefits for pregnancy-related conditions to the same extent as for other medical conditions. The plan continued, however, to provide less favorable pregnancy benefits for spouses of male employees. The question presented is whether the amended plan complies with the amended statute.

Petitioner’s plan provides hospitalization and medical-surgical coverage for a defined category of employees and a defined category of dependents. Dependents covered by the plan include employees’ spouses, unmarried children between 14 days and 19 years of age, and some older dependent children. Prior to April 29, 1979, the scope of the plan’s coverage for eligible dependents was identical to its coverage for employees. All covered males, whether employees or dependents, were treated alike for purposes of hospitalization coverage. All covered females, whether employees or dependents, also were treated alike. Moreover, with one relevant exception, the coverage for males and females was identical. The exception was a limitation on hospital coverage for pregnancy that did not apply to any other hospital confinement.

After the plan was amended in 1979, it provided the same hospitalization coverage for male and female employees themselves for all medical conditions, but it differentiated between female employees and spouses of male employees in its provision of pregnancy-related benefits. In a booklet describing the plan, petitioner explained the amendment that gave rise to this litigation in this way:

“B. Effective April 29, 1979, maternity benefits for female employees will be paid the same as any other hospital confinement as described in question 16. This applies only to deliveries beginning on April 29, 1979 and thereafter.
“C. Maternity benefits for the wife of a male employee will continue to be paid as described in part ‘A’ of this question.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a.

In turn, Part A stated: “The Basic Plan pays up to $500 of the hospital charges and 100% of reasonable and customary for delivery and anesthesiologist charges.” Ibid. As the Court of Appeals observed: “To the extent that the hospital charges in connection with an uncomplicated delivery may exceed $500, therefore, a male employee receives less complete coverage of spousal disabilities than does a female employee.” 667 F. 2d 448, 449 (CA4 1982).

After the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and before the amendment to petitioner’s plan became effective, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued “interpretive guidelines” in the form of questions and answers. Two of those questions, numbers 21 and 22, made it clear that the EEOC would consider petitioner’s amended plan unlawful. Number 21 read as follows:

“21. Q. Must an employer provide health insurance coverage for the medical expenses of pregnancy-related conditions of the spouses of male employees? Of the dependents of all employees?
“A. Where an employer provides no coverage for dependents, the employer is not required to institute such coverage. However, if an employer’s insurance program covers the medical expenses of spouses of female employees, then it must equally cover the medical expenses of spouses of male employees, including those arising from pregnancy-related conditions.
“But the insurance does not have to cover the pregnancy-related conditions of non-spouse dependents as long as it excludes the pregnancy-related conditions of such non-spouse dependents of male and female employees equally.” 44 Fed. Reg. 23807 (Apr. 20, 1979).

On September 20, 1979, one of petitioner’s male employees filed a charge with the EEOC alleging that petitioner had unlawfully refused to provide full insurance coverage for his wife’s hospitalization caused by pregnancy; a month later the United Steelworkers filed a similar charge on behalf of other individuals. App. 15-18. Petitioner then commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, challenging the Commission’s guidelines and seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint named the EEOC, the male employee, and the United Steelworkers of America as defendants. Id., at 5-14. Later the EEOC filed a civil action against petitioner alleging discrimination on the basis of sex against male employees in the company’s provision of hospitalization benefits. Id., at 28-31. Concluding that the benefits of the new Act extended only to female employees, and not to spouses of male employees, the District Court held that petitioner’s plan was lawful and enjoined enforcement of the EEOC guidelines relating to pregnancy benefits for employees’ spouses. 510 F. Supp. 66 (1981). It also dismissed the EEOC’s complaint. App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a. The two cases were consolidated on appeal.

A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, reasoning that since “the company’s health insurance plan contains a distinction based on pregnancy that results in less complete medical coverage for male employees with spouses than for female employees with spouses, it is impermissible under the statute.” 667 F. 2d, at 451. After rehearing the case en banc, the court reaffirmed the conclusion of the panel over the dissent of three judges who believed the statute was intended to protect female employees “in their ability or inability to work,” and not to protect spouses of male employees. 682 F. 2d 113 (1982). Because the important question presented by the case had been decided differently by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, EEOC v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 680 F. 2d 1243 (1982), we granted certiorari. 459 U. S. 1069 (1982).

Ultimately the question we must decide is whether petitioner has discriminated against its male employees with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of their sex within the meaning of § 703(a)(1) of Title VII. Although the Pregnancy Discrimination Act has clarified the meaning of certain terms in this section, neither that Act nor the underlying statute contains a definition of the word “discriminate.” In order to decide whether petitioner’s plan discriminates against male employees because of their sex, we must therefore go beyond the bare statutory language. Accordingly, we shall consider whether Congress, by enacting the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not only overturned the specific holding in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976), but also rejected the test of discrimination employed by the Court in that case. We believe it did. Under the proper test petitioner’s plan is unlawful, because the protection it affords to married male employees is less comprehensive than the protection it affords to married female employees.

1-H

At issue in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert was the legality of a disability plan that provided the company’s employees with weekly compensation during periods of disability resulting from nonoccupational causes. Because the plan excluded disabilities arising from pregnancy, the District Court and the Court of Appeals concluded that it discriminated against female employees because of their sex. This Court reversed.

After noting that Title VII does not define the term “discrimination,” the Court applied an analysis derived from cases construing the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Id., at 133. The Gilbert opinion quoted at length from a footnote in Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U. S. 484 (1974), a case which had upheld the constitutionality of excluding pregnancy coverage under California’s disability insurance plan. “Since it is a finding of sex-based discrimination that must trigger, in a case such as this, the finding of an unlawful employment practice under § 703(a)(1),” the Court added, “Geduldig is precisely in point in its holding that an exclusion of pregnancy from a disability-benefits plan providing general coverage is not a gender-based discrimination at all.” 429 U. S., at 136.

The dissenters in Gilbert took issue with the majority’s assumption “that the Fourteenth Amendment standard of discrimination is coterminous with that applicable to Title VII.” Id., at 154, n. 6 (Brennan, J., dissenting); id., at 160-161 (Stevens, J., dissenting). As a matter of statutory interpretation, the dissenters rejected the Court’s holding that the plan’s exclusion of disabilities caused by pregnancy did not constitute discrimination based on sex. As Justice Brennan explained, it was facially discriminatory for the company to devise “a policy that, but for pregnancy, offers protection for all risks, even those that are ‘unique to’ men or heavily male dominated.” Id., at 160. It was inaccurate to describe the program as dividing potential recipients into two groups, pregnant women and nonpregnant persons, because insurance programs “deal with future risks rather than historic facts.” Rather, the appropriate classification was “between persons who face a risk of pregnancy and those who do not.” Id., at 161-162, n. 5 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The company’s plan, which was intended to provide employees with protection against the risk of uncompensated unemployment caused by physical disability, discriminated on the basis of sex by giving men protection for all categories of risk but giving women only partial protection. Thus, the dissenters asserted that the statute had been violated because conditions of employment for females were less favorable than for similarly situated males.

When Congress amended Title VII in 1978, it unambiguously expressed its disapproval of both the holding and the reasoning of the Court in the Gilbert decision. It incorporated a new subsection in the “definitions” applicable “[f]or the purposes of this subchapter.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e (1976 ed., Supp. V). The first clause of the Act states, quite simply: “The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” §2000e-(k). The House Report stated: “It is the Committee’s view that the dissenting Justices correctly interpreted the Act.” Similarly, the Senate Report quoted passages from the two dissenting opinions, stating that they “correctly express both the principle and the meaning of title VII.” Proponents of the bill repeatedly emphasized that the Supreme Court had erroneously interpreted congressional intent and that amending legislation was necessary to reestablish the principles of Title VII law as they had been understood prior to the Gilbert decision. Many of them expressly agreed with the views of the dissenting Justices.

As petitioner argues, congressional discussion focused on the needs of female members of the work force rather than spouses of male employees. This does not create a “negative inference” limiting the scope of the Act to the specific problem that motivated its enactment. See United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576, 591 (1981). Cf. McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U. S. 273, 285-296 (1976). Congress apparently assumed that existing plans that included benefits for dependents typically provided no less pregnancy-related coverage for the wives of male employees than they did for female employees. When the question of differential coverage for dependents was addressed in the Senate Report, the Committee indicated that it should be resolved “on the basis of existing title VII principles.” The legislative context makes it clear that Congress was not thereby referring to the view of Title VII reflected in this Court’s Gilbert opinion. Proponents of the legislation stressed throughout the debates that Congress had always intended to protect all individuals from sex discrimination in employment — including but not limited to pregnant women workers. Against this background we review the terms of the amended statute to decide whether petitioner has unlawfully discriminated against its male employees.

II

Section 703(a) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to “discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . . . 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a) (1). Health insurance and other fringe benefits are “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” Male as well as female employees are protected against discrimination. Thus, if a private employer were to provide complete health insurance coverage for the dependents of its female employees, and no coverage at all for the dependents of its male employees, it would violate Title VII. Such a practice would not pass the simple test of Title VII discrimination that we enunciated in Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 711 (1978), for it would treat a male employee with dependents “ ‘in a manner which but for that person’s sex would be different.’” The same result would be reached even if the magnitude of the discrimination were smaller. For example, a plan that provided complete hospitalization coverage for the spouses of female employees but did not cover spouses of male employees when they had broken' bones would violate Title VII by discriminating against male employees.

Petitioner’s practice is just as unlawful. Its plan provides limited pregnancy-related benefits for employees’ wives, and affords more extensive coverage for employees’ spouses for all other medical conditions requiring hospitalization. Thus the husbands of female employees receive a specified level of hospitalization coverage for all conditions; the wives of male employees receive such coverage except for pregnancy-related conditions. Although Gilbert concluded that an otherwise inclusive plan that singled out pregnancy-related benefits for exclusion was nondiscriminatory on its face, because only women can become pregnant, Congress has unequivocally rejected that reasoning. The 1978 Act makes clear that it is discriminatory to treat pregnancy-related conditions less favorably than other medical conditions. Thus petitioner’s plan unlawfully gives married male employees a benefit package for their dependents that is less inclusive than the dependency coverage provided to married female employees.

There is no merit to petitioner’s argument that the prohibitions of Title VII do not extend to discrimination against pregnant spouses because the statute applies only to discrimination in employment. A two-step analysis demonstrates the fallacy in this contention. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act has now made clear that, for all Title VII purposes, discrimination based on a woman’s pregnancy is, on its face, discrimination because of her sex. And since the sex of the spouse is always the opposite of the sex of the employee, it follows inexorably that discrimination against female spouses in the provision of fringe benefits is also discrimination against male employees. Cf. Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co., 446 U. S. 142, 147 (1980). By making clear that an employer could not discriminate on the basis of an employee’s pregnancy, Congress did not erase the original prohibition against discrimination on the basis of an employee’s sex.

In short, Congress’ rejection of the premises of General Electric Co. v. Gilbert forecloses any claim that an insurance program excluding pregnancy coverage for female beneficiaries and providing complete coverage to similarly situated male beneficiaries does not discriminate on the basis of sex. Petitioner’s plan is the mirror image of the plan at issue in Gilbert. The pregnancy limitation in this case violates Title VII by discriminating against male employees.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Justice Rehnquist,

with whom Justice Powell joins,

dissenting.

In General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976), we held that an exclusion of pregnancy from a disability-benefits plan is not discrimination “because of [an] individual’s . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 78 Stat. 255, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a)(1). In our view, therefore, Title VII was not violated by an employer’s disability plan that provided all employees with nonoccupational sickness and accident benefits, but excluded from the plan’s coverage disabilities arising from pregnancy. Under our decision in Gilbert, petitioner’s otherwise inclusive benefits plan that excludes pregnancy benefits for a male employee’s spouse clearly would not violate Title VII. For a different result to obtain, Gilbert would have to be judicially overruled by this Court or Congress would have to legislatively overrule our decision in its entirety by amending Title VII.

Today, the Court purports to find the latter by relying on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076, 42 U. S. C. §2000e(k) (1976 ed., Supp. V), a statute that plainly speaks only of female employees affected by pregnancy and says nothing about spouses of male employees. Congress, of course, was free to legislatively overrule Gilbert in whole or in part, and there is no question but what the Pregnancy Discrimination Act manifests congressional dissatisfaction with the result we reached in Gilbert. But I think the Court reads far more into the Pregnancy Discrimination Act than Congress put there, and that therefore it is the Court, and not Congress, which is now overruling Gilbert.

In a case presenting a relatively simple question of statutory construction, the Court pays virtually no attention to the language of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act or the legislative history pertaining to that language. The Act provides in relevant part:

“The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work_” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(k) (1976 ed., Supp. V).

The Court recognizes that this provision is merely definitional and that “[ultimately the question we must decide is whether petitioner has discriminated against its male employees . . . because of their sex within the meaning of § 703(a)(1)” of Title VII. Ante, at 675. Section 703(a)(1) provides in part:

“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin _” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(l).

It is undisputed that in § 703(a)(1) the word “individual” refers to an employee or applicant for employment. As modified by the first clause of the definitional provision of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the proscription in § 703(a)(1) is for discrimination “against any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” This can only be read as referring to the pregnancy of an employee.

That this result was not inadvertent on the part of Congress is made very evident by the second clause of the Act, language that the Court essentially ignores in its opinion. When Congress in this clause further explained the proscription it was creating by saying that “women affected by pregnancy . . . shall be treated the same ... as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work” it could only have been referring to female employees. The Court of Appeals below stands alone in thinking otherwise.

The Court concedes that this is a correct reading of the second clause. Ante, at 678, n. 14. Then in an apparent effort to escape the impact of this provision, the Court asserts that “[t]he meaning of the first clause is not limited by the specific language in the second clause.” Ibid. I do not disagree. But this conclusion does not help the Court, for as explained above, when the definitional provision of the first clause is inserted in § 703(a)(1), it says the very same thing: the proscription added to Title VII applies only to female employees.

The plain language of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act leaves little room for the Court’s conclusion that the Act was intended to extend beyond female employees. The Court concedes that “congressional discussion focused on the needs of female members of the work force rather than spouses of male employees.” Ante, at 679. In fact, the singular focus of discussion on the problems of the pregnant worker is striking.

When introducing the Senate Report on the bill that later became the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, its principal sponsor, Senator Williams, explained:

“Because of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Gilbert case, this legislation is necessary to provide fundamental protection against sex discrimination for our Nation’s 42 million working women. This protection will go a long way toward insuring that American women are permitted to assume their rightful place in our Nation’s economy.
“In addition to providing protection to working women with regard to fringe benefit programs, such as health and disability insurance programs, this legislation will prohibit other employment policies which adversely affect pregnant workers” 124 Cong. Rec. 36817 (1978) (emphasis added).

As indicated by the examples in the margin, the Congressional Record is overflowing with similar statements by individual Members of Congress expressing their intention to ensure with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act that working women are not treated differently because of pregnancy. Consistent with these views, all three Committee Reports on the bills that led to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act expressly state that the Act would require employers to treat pregnant employees the same as “other employees.”

The Court trys to avoid the impact of this legislative history by saying that it “does not create a ‘negative inference’ limiting the scope of the Act to the specific problem that motivated its enactment.” Ante, at 679. This reasoning might have some force if the legislative history was silent on an arguably related issue. But the legislative history is not silent. The Senate Report provides:

“Questions were raised in the committee’s deliberations regarding how this bill would affect medical coverage for dependents of employees, as opposed to employees themselves. In this context it must be remembered that the basic purpose of this bill is to protect women employees, it does not alter the basic principles of title VII law as regards sex discrimination. . . . [T]he question in regard to dependents’ benefits would be determined on the basis of existing title VII principles. . . . [T]he question of whether an employer who does cover dependents, either with or without additional cost to the employee, may exclude conditions related to pregnancy from that coverage is a different matter. Presumably because plans which provide comprehensive medical coverage for spouses of women employees but not spouses of male employees are rare, we are not aware of any title VII litigation concerning such plans. It is certainly not this committee’s desire to encourage the institution of such plans. If such plans should be instituted in the future, the question would remain whether, under title VII, the affected employees were discriminated against on the basis of their sex as regards the extent of coverage for their dependents.” S. Rep. No. 95-331, pp. 5-6 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 42-43 (emphasis added).

This plainly disclaims any intention to deal with the issue presented in this case. Where Congress says that it would not want “to encourage” plans such as petitioner’s, it cannot plausibly be argued that Congress has intended “to prohibit” such plans. Senator Williams was questioned on this point by Senator Hatch during discussions on the floor and his answers are to the same effect.

“MR. HATCH: . . . The phrase ‘women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions,’. . . appears to be overly broad, and is not limited in terms of employment. It does not even require that the person so affected be pregnant.
“Indeed under the present language of the bill, it is arguable that spouses of male employees are covered by this civil rights amendment. . . .
“Could the sponsors clarify exactly whom that phrase intends to cover?
“MR. WILLIAMS: ... I do not see how one can read into this any pregnancy other than that pregnancy that relates to the employee, and if there is any ambiguity, let it be clear here now that this is very precise. It deals with a woman, a woman who is an employee, an employee in a work situation where all disabilities are covered under a company plan that provides income maintenance in the event of medical disability; that her particular period of disability, when she cannot work because of childbirth or anything related to childbirth is excluded. . . .
“MR. HATCH: So the Senator is satisfied that, though the committee language I brought up, ‘woman affected by pregnancy’ seems to be ambiguous, what it means is that this act only applies to the particular woman who is actually pregnant, who is an employee and has become pregnant after her employments
“MR. WILLIAMS: Exactly.” 123 Cong. Rec. 29643-29644 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 80 (emphasis added).

It seems to me that analysis of this case should end here. Under our decision in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert petitioner’s exclusion of pregnancy benefits for male employee’s spouses would not offend Title VII. Nothing in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was intended to reach beyond female employees. Thus, Gilbert controls and requires that we reverse the Court of Appeals. But it is here, at what should be the stopping place, that the Court begins. The Court says:

“Although the Pregnancy Discrimination Act has clarified the meaning of certain terms in this section, neither that Act nor the underlying statute contains a definition of the word ‘discriminate.’ In order to decide whether petitioner’s plan discriminates against male employees because of their sex, we must therefore go beyond the bare statutory language. Accordingly, we shall consider whether Congress, by enacting the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not only overturned the specific holding in General Electric v. Gilbert, supra, but also rejected the test of discrimination employed by the Court in that case. We believe it did.” Ante, at 675-676.

It would seem that the Court has refuted its own argument by recognizing that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act only clarifies the meaning of the phrases “because of sex” and “on the basis of sex,” and says nothing concerning the definition of the word “discriminate.” Instead the Court proceeds to try to explain that while Congress said one thing, it did another.

The crux of the Court’s reasoning is that even though the Pregnancy Discrimination Act redefines the phrases “because of sex” and “on the basis of sex” only to include discrimination against female employees affected by pregnancy, Congress also expressed its view that in Gilbert “the Supreme Court. . . erroneously interpreted congressional intent.” Ante, at 679. See also ante, at 684. Somehow the Court then concludes that this renders all of Gilbert obsolete.

In support of its argument, the Court points to a few passages in congressional Reports and several statements by various Members of the 95th Congress to the effect that the Court in Gilbert had, when it construed Title VII, misper-ceived the intent of the 88th Congress. Ante, at 679, n. 17. The Court also points out that “[m]any of [the Members of the 95th Congress] expressly agreed with the views of the dissenting Justices.” Ante, at 679. Certainly various Members of Congress said as much. But the fact remains that Congress as a body has not expressed these sweeping views in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Under our decision in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, petitioner’s exclusion of pregnancy benefits for male employees’ spouses would not violate Title VII. Since nothing in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act even arguably reaches beyond female employees affected by pregnancy, Gilbert requires that we reverse the Court of Appeals. Because the Court concludes otherwise, I dissent.

       Pub. L. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076 (quoting title of 1978 Act). The new statute (the Pregnancy Discrimination Act) amended the “Definitions” section of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e, to add a new subsection (k) reading in pertinent part as follows:
      “The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise. . . .” §2000e(k) (1976 ed., Supp. V).

       The amendment to Title VII became effective on the date of its enactment, October 31, 1978, but its requirements did not apply to any then-existing fringe benefit program until 180 days after enactment — April 29, 1979. 92 Stat. 2076. The amendment to petitioner’s plan became effective on April 29, 1979.

       On the first day following three months of continuous service, every active, full-time, production, maintenance, technical, and clerical area bargaining unit employee becomes a plan participant. App. to Pet. for Cert. 29a.

         For example, unmarried children up to age 23 who are full-time college students solely dependent on an employee and certain mentally or physically handicapped children are also covered. Id., at 30a.

       An amount payable under the plan for medical expenses incurred by a dependent does, however, take into account any amounts payable for those expenses by other group insurance plans. An employee’s personal coverage is not affected by his or her spouse’s participation in a group health plan. Id., at 34a-36a.

       For hospitalization caused by uncomplicated pregnancy, petitioner’s plan paid 100% of the reasonable and customary physicians’ charges for delivery and anesthesiology, and up to $500 of other hospital charges. For all other hospital confinement, the plan paid in full for a semiprivate room for up to 120 days and for surgical procedures; covered the first $750 of reasonable and customary charges for hospital services (including general nursing care, X-ray examinations, and drugs) and other necessary services during hospitalization; and paid 80% of the charges exceeding $750 for such services up to a maximum of 120 days. Id., at 31a-32a (question 16); see id., at 44a-45a (same differentiation for coverage after the employee’s termination).

       Thus, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found after its investigation, “the record reveals that the present disparate impact on male employees had its genesis in the gender-based distinction accorded to female employees in the past.” App. 37.

       Interim interpretive guidelines were published for comment in the Federal Register on March 9,1979. 44 Fed. Reg. 13278-13281. Final guidelines were published in the Federal Register on April 20, 1979. Id., at 23804-23808. The EEOC explained: “It is the Commission’s desire . . . that all interested parties be made aware of EEOC’s view of their rights and obligations in advance of April 29,1979, so that they may be in compliance by that date.” Id., at 23804. The questions and answers are reprinted as an appendix to 29 CFR § 1604 (1982).

       Question 22 is equally clear. It reads:
      “22. Q. Must an employer provide the same level of health insurance coverage for the pregnancy-related medical conditions of the spouses of male employees as it provides for its female employees?
      “A. No. It is not necessary to provide the same level of coverage for the pregnancy-related medical conditions of spouses of male employees as for female employees. However, where the employer provides coverage for the medical conditions of the spouses of its employees, then the level of coverage for pregnancy-related medical conditions of the spouses of male employees must be the same as the level of coverage for all other medical conditions of the spouses of female employees. For example, if the employer covers employees for 100 percent of reasonable and customary expenses sustained for a medical condition, but only covers dependent spouses for 50 percent of reasonable and customary expenses for their medical conditions, the pregnancy-related expenses of the male employee’s spouse must be covered at the 50 percent level.” 44 Fed. Reg., at 23807-28808.

       Subsequently the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the Ninth Circuit. EEOC v. Joslyn Mfg. & Supply Co., 706 F. 2d 1469 (1983).

       Section 703(a), 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a), provides in pertinent part:
      “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
      “(1) to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . . . .”
      Although the 1978 Act makes clear that this language should be construed to prohibit discrimination against a female employee on the basis of her own pregnancy, it did not remove or limit Title VH’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of the sex of the employee — male or female — which was already present in the Act. As we explain infra, at 682-685, petitioner’s plan discriminates against male employees on the basis of their sex.

        “ ‘While it is true that only women can become pregnant, it does not follow that every legislative classification concerning pregnancy is a sex-based classification like those considered in Reed [v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971)], and Frontiero [v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677 (1973)]. Normal pregnancy is an objectively identifiable physical condition with unique characteristics. Absent a showing that distinctions involving pregnancy are mere pretexts designed to effect an invidious discrimination against the members of one sex or the other, lawmakers are constitutionally free to include or exclude pregnancy from the coverage of legislation such as this on any reasonable basis, just as with respect to any other physical condition.
      “ ‘The lack of identity between the excluded disability and gender as such under this insurance program becomes clear upon the most cursory analysis. The program divides potential recipients into two groups — pregnant women and nonpregnant persons. While the first group is exclusively female, the second includes members of both sexes.’ [417 U. S.], at 496-497, n. 20.” 429 U. S., at 134-135.
      The principal emphasis in the text of the Geduldig opinion, unlike the quoted footnote, was on the reasonableness of the State’s cost justifications for the classification in its insurance program. See n. 13, infra.

       As the text of the Geduldig opinion makes clear, in evaluating the constitutionality of California’s insurance program, the Court focused on the “non-invidious” character of the State’s legitimate fiscal interest in excluding pregnancy coverage. 417 U. S., at 496. This justification was not relevant to the statutory issue presented in Gilbert. See n. 25, infra.

       The meaning of the first clause is not limited by the specific language in the second clause, which explains the application of the general principle to women employees.

       H. R. Rep. No. 95-948, p. 2 (1978), Legislative History of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (Committee Print prepared for the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources), p. 148 (1979) (hereinafter Leg. Hist.).

       S. Rep. No. 95-331, pp. 2-3 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 39-40.

         Id., at 7-8 (“the bill is merely reestablishing the law as it was understood prior to Gilbert by the EEOC and by the lower courts”); H. R. Rep. No. 95-948, supra, at 8 (same); 123 Cong. Rec. 10581 (1977) (remarks of Rep. Hawkins) (“H. R. 5055 does not really add anything to title VII as I and, I believe, most of my colleagues in Congress when title VII was enacted in 1964 and amended in 1972, understood the prohibition against sex discrimination in employment. For, it seems only commonsense, that since only women can become pregnant, discrimination against pregnant people is necessarily discrimination against women, and that forbidding discrimination based on sex therefore clearly forbids discrimination based on pregnancy”); id., at 29387 (remarks of Sen. Javits) (“this bill is simply corrective legislation, designed to restore the law with respect to pregnant women employees to the point where it was last year, before the Supreme Court’s decision in Gilbert. . id., at 29647; id., at 29655 (remarks of Sen. Javits) (“What we are doing is leaving the situation the way it was before the Supreme Court decided the Gilbert case last year”); 124 Cong. Rec. 21436 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Sarasin) (“This bill would restore the interpretation of title VII prior to that decision”).
      For statements expressly approving the views of the dissenting Justices that pregnancy discrimination is discrimination on the basis of sex, see Leg. Hist., at 18 (remarks of Sen. Bayh, Mar. 18, 1977, 123 Cong. Rec. 8144); 24 (remarks of Rep. Hawkins, Apr. 5, 1977, 123 Cong. Rec. 10582); 67 (remarks of Sen. Javits, Sept. 15, 1977, 123 Cong. Rec. 29387); 73 (remarks of Sen. Bayh, Sept. 16, 1977, 123 Cong. Rec. 29641); 134 (remarks of Sen. Mathias, Sept. 16, 1977, 123 Cong. Rec. 29663-29664); 168 (remarks of Rep. Sarasin, July 18, 1978, 124 Cong. Rec. 21436). See also Discrimination on the Basis of Pregnancy, 1977, Hearings on S. 995 before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Human Resources, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 13 (1977) (statement of Sen. Bayh); id., at 37, 51 (statement of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Drew S. Days).

       In McDonald, the Court held that 42 U. S. C. § 1981, which gives “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States . . . the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens,” protects whites against discrimination on the basis of race even though the “immediate impetus for the bill was the necessity for further relief of the constitutionally emancipated former Negro slaves.” 427 U. S., at 289.

       This, of course, was true of petitioner’s plan prior to the enactment of the statute. See supra, at 672. See S. Rep. No. 95-331, supra n. 16, at 6, Leg. Hist., at 43 (“Presumably because plans which provide comprehensive medical coverage for spouses of women employees but not spouses of male employees are rare, we are not aware of any Title VII litigation concerning such plans. It is certainly not this committee’s desire to encourage the institution of such plans”); 123 Cong. Rec. 29663 (1977) (remarks of Sen. Cranston); Brief for Respondent 31-33, n. 31.

       “Questions were raised in the committee’s deliberations regarding how this bill would affect medical coverage for dependents of employees, as opposed to employees themselves. In this context it must be remembered that the basic purpose of this bill is to protect women employees, it does not alter the basic principles of title VII law as regards sex discrimination. Rather, this legislation clarifies the definition of sex discrimination for title VII purposes. Therefore the question in regard to dependents’ benefits would be determined on the basis of existing title VII principles.” S. Rep. No. 95-331, supra n. 16, at 5-6, Leg. Hist., at 42-43.
      This statement does not imply that the new statutory definition has no applicability; it merely acknowledges that the new definition does not itself resolve the question.
      The dissent quotes extensive excerpts from an exchange on the Senate floor between Senators Hatch and Williams. Post, at 692-693. Taken in context, this colloquy clearly deals only with the second clause of the bill, see n. 14, supra, and Senator Williams, the principal sponsor of the legislation, addressed only the bill’s effect on income maintenance plans. Leg. Hist., at 80. Senator Williams first stated, in response to Senator Hatch: “With regard to more maintenance plans for pregnancy-related disabilities, I do not see how this language could be misunderstood.” Upon further inquiry from Senator Hatch, he replied: “If there is any ambiguity, with regard to income maintenance plans, I cannot see it.” At the end of the same response, he stated: “It is narrowly drawn and would not give any employee the right to obtain income maintenance as a result of the pregnancy of someone who is not an employee.” Ibid. These comments, which clearly limited the scope of Senator Williams’ responses, are omitted from the dissent’s lengthy quotation, post, at 692-693.
      Other omitted portions of the colloquy make clear that it was logical to discuss the pregnancies of employees’ spouses in connection with income maintenance plans. Senator Hatch asked, “what about the status of a woman eoworker who is not pregnant but rides with a pregnant woman and cannot get to work once the pregnant female commences her maternity leave or the employed mother who stays home to nurse her pregnant daughter?” Leg. Hist., at 80. The reference to spouses of male employees must be understood in light of these hypothetical questions; it seems to address the situation in which a male employee wishes to take time off from work because his wife is pregnant.

       See, e. g., 123 Cong. Rec. 7539 (1977) (remarks of Sen. Williams) (“the Court has ignored the congressional intent in enacting title VII of the Civil Rights Act — that intent was to protect all individuals from unjust employment discrimination, including pregnant workers”); id., at 29385, 29652. In light of statements such as these, it would be anomalous to hold that Congress provided that an employee’s pregnancy is sex-based, while a spouse’s pregnancy is gender-neutral.
      During the course of the Senate debate on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Senator Bayh and Senator Cranston both expressed the belief that the new Act would prohibit the exclusion of pregnancy coverage for spouses if spouses were otherwise fully covered by an insurance plan. See id., at 29642, 29663. Because our holding relies on the 1978 legislation only to the extent that it unequivocally rejected the Gilbert decision, and ultimately we rely on our understanding of general Title VII principles, we attach no more significance to these two statements than to the many other comments by both Senators and Congressmen disapproving the Court’s reasoning and conclusion in Gilbert. See n. 17, supra.

       Consistently since 1970 the EEOC has considered it unlawful under Title VII for an employer to provide different insurance coverage for spouses of male and female employees. See Guidelines On Discrimination Because of Sex, 29 CFR § 1604.9(d) (1982); Commission Decision No. 70-510, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶6132 (1970) (accident and sickness insurance); Commission Decision No. 70-513, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶ 6114 (1970) (death benefits to surviving spouse); Commission Decision No. 70-660, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶6133 (1970) (health insurance); Commission Decision No. 71-1100, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶ 6197 (1970) (group insurance).
      Similarly, in our Equal Protection Clause cases we have repeatedly held that, if the spouses of female employees receive less favorable treatment in the provision of benefits, the practice discriminates not only against the spouses but also against the female employees on the basis of sex. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 688 (1973) (opinion of Brennan, J.) (increased quarters allowances and medical and dental benefits); id., at 691 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636, 645 (1975) (Social Security benefits for surviving spouses); see also id., at 654-655 (Powell, J., concurring); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199, 207-208 (1977) (opinion of BRENNAN, J.) (Social Security benefits for surviving spouses); Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co., 446 U. S. 142, 147 (1980) (workers’ compensation death benefits for surviving spouses).

         The Manhart case was decided several months before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed. Although it was not expressly discussed in the legislative history, it set forth some of the “existing title VII principles” on which Congress relied. Cf. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 696-698 (1979). In Manhart the Court struck down the employer’s policy of requiring female employees to make larger contributions to its pension fund than male employees, because women as a class tend to live longer than men.
      “An employment practice that requires 2,000 individuals to contribute more money into a fund than 10,000 other employees simply because each of them is a woman, rather than a man, is in direct conflict with both the language and the policy of the Act. Such a practice does not pass the simple test of whether the evidence shows ‘treatment of a person in a manner which but for that person’s sex would be different.’ It constitutes discrimination and is unlawful unless exempted by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 or some other affirmative justification.” 435 U. S., at 711.
      The internal quotation was from Developments in the Law, Employment Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 84 Harv. L. Rev. 1109, 1170 (1971).

       This policy is analogous to the exclusion of broken bones for the wives of male employees, except that both employees’ wives and employees’ husbands may suffer broken bones, but only employees’ wives can become pregnant.

       See n. 22, supra. This reasoning does not require that a medical insurance plan treat the pregnancies of employees’ wives the same as the pregnancies of female employees. For example, as the EEOC recognizes, see n. 9, supra (Question 22), an employer might provide full coverage for employees and no coverage at all for dependents. Similarly, a disability plan covering employees’ children may exclude or limit maternity benefits. Although the distinction between pregnancy and other conditions is, according to the 1978 Act, discrimination “on the basis of sex,” the exclusion affects male and female employees equally since both may have pregnant dependent daughters. The EEOC’s guidelines permit differential treatment of the pregnancies of dependents who are not spouses. See 44 Fed. Reg. 23804, 23805, 23807 (1979).

       Because the 1978 Act expressly states that exclusion of pregnancy coverage is gender-based discrimination on its face, it eliminates any need to consider the average monetary value of the plan’s coverage to male and female employees. Cf. Gilbert, 429 U. S., at 137-140.
      The cost of providing complete health insurance coverage for the dependents of male employees, including pregnant wives, might exceed the cost of providing such coverage for the dependents of female employees. But although that type of cost differential may properly be analyzed in passing on the constitutionality of a State’s health insurance plan, see Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U. S. 484 (1974), no such justification is recognized under Title VII once discrimination has been shown. Manhart, 435 U. S., at 716-717; 29 CFR § 1604.9(e) (1982) (“It shall not be a defense under Title VII to a charge of sex discrimination in benefits that the cost of such benefits is greater with respect to one sex than the other”).

         In Gilbert the Court did leave open the possibility of a violation where there is a showing that “ ‘distinctions involving pregnancy are mere pretexts designed to effect an invidious discrimination against members of one sex or the other.’” 429 U. S., at 135 (quoting Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U. S. 484, 496-497, n. 20 (1974)).

       By referring to “female employees,” I do not intend to imply that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not also apply to “female applicants for employment.” I simply use the former reference as a matter of convenience.

       See EEOC v. Joslyn Mfg. & Supply Co., 706 F. 2d 1469, 1476-1477 (CA7 1983); EEOC v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 680 F. 2d 1243, 1245 (CA9 1982).
      The Court of Appeals’ majority, responding to the dissent’s reliance on this language, excused the import of the language by saying: “The statutory reference to ‘ability or inability to work’ denotes disability and does not suggest that the spouse must be an employee of the employer providing the coverage. In fact, the statute says ‘as other persons not so affected’; it does not say ‘as other employees not so affected.’” 667 F. 2d 448, 450-451 (CA4 1982). This conclusion obviously does not comport with a common-sense understanding of the language. The logical explanation for Congress’ reference to “persons” rather than “employees” is that Congress intended that the amendment should also apply to applicants for employment.

       Reprinted in a Committee Print prepared for the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., Legislative History of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, pp. 200-201 (1979) (hereinafter referred to as Leg. Hist.). In the foreword to the official printing of the Act’s legislative history, Senator Williams further described the purpose of the Act, saying:
      “The Act provides an essential protection for working women. The number of women in the labor force has increased dramatically in recent years. Most of these women are working or seeking work because of the economic need to support themselves or their families. It is expected that this trend of increasing participation by women in the workforce will continue in the future and that an increasing proportion of working women will be those who are mothers. It is essential that these women and their children be fully protected against the harmful effects of unjust employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.” Id., at III.

       See 123 Cong. Rec. 8145 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 21 (remarks of Sen. Bayh) (bill will “help provide true equality for working women of this Nation”); 128 Cong. Rec. 29385 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 62-63 (remarks of Sen. Williams) (“central purpose of the bill is to require that women workers be treated equally with other employees on the basis of their ability or inability to work”); 124 Cong. Rec. 36818 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 203 (remarks of Sen. Javits) (“bill represents only basic fairness for women employees”); 124 Cong. Rec. 36819 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 204 (remarks of Sen. Stafford) (bill will end “major source of discrimination unjustly afflicting working women in America”); 124 Cong. Rec. 21437 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 172 (remarks of Rep. Green) (bill “will provide rights workingwomen should have had years ago”); 124 Cong. Rec. 21439 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 177 (remarks of Rep. Quie) (bill is “necessary in order for women employees to enjoy equal treatment in fringe benefit programs”); 124 Cong. Rec. 21439 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 178 (remarks of Rep. Akaka) (“bill simply requires that pregnant workers be fairly and equally treated”).
      See also 123 Cong. Rec. 7541 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 7 (remarks of Sen. Brooke); 123 Cong. Rec. 7541, 29663 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 8, 134 (remarks of Sen. Mathias); 123 Cong. Rec. 29388 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 71 (remarks of Sen. Kennedy); 123 Cong. Rec. 29661 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 126 (remarks of Sen. Biden); 123 Cong. Rec. 29663 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 132 (remarks of Sen. Cranston); 123 Cong. Rec. 29663 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 132 (remarks of Sen. Culver); 124 Cong. Rec. 21439 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 178 (remarks of Rep. Corrada); 124 Cong. Rec. 21435, 38573 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 168, 207 (remarks of Rep. Hawkins); 124 Cong. Rec. 38574 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 208-209 (remarks of Rep. Sarasin); 124 Cong. Rec. 21440 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 180 (remarks of Rep. Chisholm); 124 Cong. Rec. 21440 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 181 (remarks of Rep. LaFalce); 124 Cong. Rec. 21441 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 182 (remarks of Rep. Collins); 124 Cong. Rec. 21441 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 184 (remarks of Rep. Whalen); 124 Cong. Rec. 21442 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 185 (remarks of Rep. Burke); 124 Cong. Rec. 21442 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 185 (remarks of Rep. Tsongas).

       See Report of the Senate Committee on Human Resources, S. Rep. No. 95-331 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 38-53; Report of the House Committee on Education and Labor, H. R. Rep. No. 95-948 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 147-164; Report of the Committee of Conference, H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1786 (1978), Leg. Hist., at 194-198.

       The Court suggests that in this exchange Senator Williams is explaining only that spouses of male employees will not be put on “income maintenance plans” while pregnant. Ante, at 680, n. 20. This is utterly illogical. Spouses of employees have no income from the relevant employer to be maintained. Senator Williams clearly says that the Act is limited to female employees and as to such employees it will ensure income maintenance where male employees would receive similar disability benefits. Senator Hatch’s final question and Senator Williams’ response could not be clearer. The Act was intended to affect only pregnant workers. This is exactly what the Senate Report said and Senator Williams confirmed that this is exactly what Congress intended.
      The only indications arguably contrary to the views reflected in the Senate Report and the exchange between Senators Hatch and Williams are found in two isolated remarks by Senators Bayh and Cranston. 123 Cong. Rec. 29642, 29663 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 75, 131. These statements, however, concern these two Senators’ views concerning Title VII sex discrimination as it existed prior to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Their conclusions are completely at odds with our decision in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976), and are not entitled to deference here. We have consistently said: “The views of members of a later Congress, concerning different [unamended] sections of Title VII. .. are entitled to little if any weight. It is the intent of the Congress that enacted [Title VII] in 1964 . . . that controls.” Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 354, n. 39 (1977). See also Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U. S. 397, 411, n. 11 (1979).

       The Court also concedes at one point that the Senate Report on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act “acknowledges that the new definition [in the Act] does not itself resolve the question” presented in this case. Ante, at 680, n. 20.