In the 1986 case Wimberly v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state could deny unemployment benefits to a woman who was unable to work because of pregnancy. The plaintiff, Lillian C. Wimberly, had been receiving unemployment benefits when she became pregnant and stopped seeking employment due to her condition. She argued that denying her benefits constituted sex discrimination under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act as well as violation of Equal Protection Clause in Fourteenth Amendment since non-pregnant individuals with temporary disabilities were not denied such benefits. However, the court held (7-2) that Missouri's denial did not constitute sex discrimination or violate equal protection rights because it applied equally to all individuals who voluntarily left their jobs without good cause related to their employment - regardless if they are male or female. The majority opinion stated "the fact that only women can become pregnant does not transform every classification concerning pregnancy into a gender-based classification". Therefore, this ruling upheld states' rights to establish criteria for eligibility for unemployment compensation.

In the dissenting opinion for Wimberly v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Unemployment Compensation Act. He argued that it was not Congress' intent to deny benefits to pregnant women who were willing and able to work but had been laid off due to a lack of available positions. The justice believed that this ruling unfairly penalized these women by denying them unemployment compensation based on their pregnancy status rather than their ability or willingness to work. Furthermore, he pointed out that other workers temporarily unable to work due to illness or injury are still eligible for benefits under the act, suggesting an unfair bias against pregnant women in this case.