Vanderbilt Law Review

First Page



In this Article, Professor Kovacic-liTeischer argues that the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Virginia raises gender equal protection analysis to the level of strict scrutiny. Professor Kovacic-Fleischer asserts that the Court's refusal to accept as immutable VMI's single-sex institutional design, and the Court's requirement that VMT make adjustments and alterations that will enable qualified women to undertake VM's curriculum evidences this shift in gender equal protection analysis. Professor Kovacic-Fleischer then turns to the significance of the Court's citation to California Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Guerra. She asserts that this citation indicates that the Court effectively overruled Geduldig v. Aiello's holding that pregnancy discrimination is not necessarily sex-based discrimination. Further, she asserts that the Guerra citation also indicates that United States v. Virginia's adjustments and alterations model of gender equal protection analysis is applicable to Title VII. Under this analysis, workplaces would be required to make adjustments and alterations designed to accommodate pregnancy and parenting. Professor Kovacic- Fleischer concludes that such adjustments and alterations would prove economically beneficial to employers and would facilitate equal allocation of work and responsibilities within families.