1977, May, Pg. 808. From the Wool-Sack.

• Author: by Christopher R. Brauchli

6 Colo.Law. 808

Colorado Lawyer

1977.

1977, May, Pg. 808.

From the Wool-Sack

808Vol. 6, No. 5, Pg. 808From the Wool-Sackby Christopher R. BrauchliA woman is only a woman But a good cigar is a smoke.Kipling, Departmental DittiesAny wanderer in the legal thicket of the American legal system knows that to assist him in his wandering among the often complex and more often obfuscatory statutes there are court decisions. Most cases are of interest primarily to the litigants, but occasionally a case is decided which for one reason or another is of interest not only to the litigants but to other lawyers and, frequently, the public at large. When a sojourner in the case law finds such a case he thereafter refers to it as a landmark decision, presumably to distinguish it from other court decisions which are not landmarks and which if followed will almost always get the traveller lost. Landmark cases are not, per se, either good or bad. Only a reading of a case will tell you whether it is a good landmark case or a bad landmark case. A reading of this column, however, may give you a hint as to the character of the case discussed herein.

As if to try to dispel the notion that all legal folly comes from Congress as past columns from time to time seem to have suggested, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Gilbert vs. General Electric, 45 Law Week 4031, announced December 7, 1976, came a cropper. In so coming, it also produced a landmark decision. In a ruling that is of no particular interest to men or women, but of great interest to pregnant persons or persons who contemplate becoming pregnant irrespective of their sex, the Supreme Court held that exclusion of pregnancy benefits from a disability benefits plan was not a gender based discrimination. Such a holding facially entitles this case to the designation of a landmark case.(fn1) In support of its holding, the Court quotes at length from Geduldig vs. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484(1974) stating at page 4034 as follows: The lack of identity between the excluded disability [pregnancy] and gender as such under this insurance program becomes clear upon the most cursory analysis.(fn2) The program divides potential recipients into two groups---pregnant women and non pregnant persons. While the first group is exclusively female, the second includes members of both sexes...