This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

As a class, women live longer than men. D required its female employees to make larger contributions to its pension fund than its male employees. Benefits are funded entirely by contributions from the employees and D, augmented by the income earned on those contributions. No private insurance company is involved in the administration or payment of benefits. Employee contributions were withheld from paychecks. Female employees took home less pay than male employees earning the same salary. Since the effective date of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, D has been an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ps brought suit on behalf of a class of women employed or formerly employed by D. They prayed for an injunction and restitution of excess contributions. The California Legislature enacted a law prohibiting certain municipal agencies from requiring female employees to make higher pension fund contributions than males. D amended its plan, effective January 1, 1975. The current plan draws no distinction, either in contributions or in benefits, on the basis of sex. On a motion for summary judgment, the District Court held that the contribution differential violated § 703 (a)(1) and ordered a refund of all excess contributions made before the amendment of the plan. The Court of Appeals affirmed. D contends that: (1) the differential in take-home pay between men and women was not discrimination within the meaning of § 703 (a)(1) because it was offset by a difference in the value of the pension benefits provided to the two classes of employees; and (2) the differential was based on a factor 'other than sex' within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and was therefore protected by the so-called Bennett Amendment.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.