In the case of Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1982), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a company's health insurance plan was discriminatory because it provided less extensive pregnancy benefits for spouses of male employees than it did for female employees. The court held that this violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment and employee benefits, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA specifies that employers must treat "women affected by pregnancy...the same for all employment-related purposes...as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work." Therefore, since Newport News' policy treated pregnant wives of male workers differently from pregnant female workers themselves - providing them with lesser coverage - it constituted unlawful sex discrimination under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Justice Powell argued that the majority misinterpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by extending its protections to male employees in a way not intended by Congress. He contended that while Title VII was designed to eliminate workplace discrimination against women, it did not require identical treatment of men and women in all circumstances. In this case, he believed that differentiating between maternity and paternity benefits did not constitute sex discrimination because pregnancy is a uniquely female condition requiring special consideration. Therefore, providing greater benefits for pregnant women than their male counterparts does not violate equal protection principles under Title VII as per his interpretation.