The Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney case in 1978 revolved around a Massachusetts law that gave absolute lifetime preference to veterans seeking employment in the state's civil service positions, regardless of how long ago they served or their current qualifications for the job. The majority of these veterans were men, and this led to a discrimination lawsuit by female applicants who felt disadvantaged by this policy. Helen B. Feeney filed suit against the personnel administrator claiming violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights due to gender-based discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the defendant, stating that while it was true that more men than women benefited from this law because more men are veterans, there was no evidence suggesting that its purpose was discriminatory towards women. The court held that any incidental disadvantage suffered by non-veteran females did not constitute unconstitutional discrimination under Equal Protection Clause as it lacked "discriminatory intent". Therefore, despite having disparate impact on women’s employment opportunities within civil services sector due to higher proportion male veterans population; without proof showing intentional gender biasness behind such legislation – it cannot be deemed unlawful.

In the dissenting opinion for Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision failed to properly apply strict scrutiny in evaluating a law that discriminated on the basis of sex. He contended that while veterans deserved recognition and benefits for their service, it was not necessary or appropriate to achieve this by systematically disadvantaging women. The law at issue gave absolute preference to veterans (the vast majority of whom were men) over non-veterans in public employment, regardless of qualifications or ability. This meant that even highly qualified women could be passed over indefinitely for jobs they were well-suited for simply because there was always a veteran available to take the position instead. Marshall asserted this constituted intentional discrimination against women and should have been struck down as unconstitutional under equal protection principles.