Honestly, if you looked at the hiring stats for Martin Marietta Corp. in the late 1960s, you’d probably think they were the poster child for progressive employment. About 75 to 80 percent of the people they hired for their assembly line were women. In an era where "Mad Men" vibes were still the norm, those numbers were huge.
But there was a catch. A big one.
If you were a woman with a toddler or a kid in preschool, the door wasn't just closed. It was slammed shut. That’s where Ida Phillips comes in. She was a mother of seven—yeah, seven—living in Orlando, Florida. In 1966, she was working as a waitress making about $51 a week. When she saw an ad for assembly work at Martin Marietta that paid over $100 a week, she thought she’d hit the jackpot.
She didn't. When she tried to hand in her application, she was told point-blank: "We don't hire women with preschool-aged children."
📖 Related: The Truth About the Fed Fund Rate Forecast: What’s Actually Coming in 2026
The kicker? They had no problem hiring men with kids that same age.
The "Sex-Plus" Problem
This case, Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., basically became the Supreme Court’s first real test of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it came to gender. Before this, the law was brand new. People weren't entirely sure how far "sex discrimination" actually went.
Martin Marietta’s legal team was actually pretty clever. They argued they weren't discriminating against women as a class. Their proof? Most of their employees were women! They claimed they were only discriminating against a specific sub-group: women with young kids.
Legal scholars call this "sex-plus" discrimination. It’s the idea that you aren't firing or refusing to hire someone just because they are a woman, but because they are a woman plus something else—like being married, being pregnant, or having young children.
✨ Don't miss: S.M.A.R.T. Goals: Why Your To-Do List Is Failing You and How to Fix It
The lower courts actually fell for it. They ruled that because the "plus" factor (having kids) wasn't a protected category like race or religion, the company was allowed to have different rules for moms than for dads. They basically said, "Hey, mothers have different responsibilities than fathers, and businesses can recognize that."
Why the Supreme Court Stepped In
Ida Phillips wasn't having it. She eventually got the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund involved. Even though she was white, the NAACP saw the danger here. If companies could just add a "plus" factor to circumvent the Civil Rights Act, the law would be essentially useless.
In 1971, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam (meaning "by the court" as a whole) opinion that changed everything. It was short. It was punchy. And it was unanimous.
The Court said Title VII requires that people with similar qualifications be treated the same regardless of their sex. You can't have one hiring policy for women and a different one for men just because of "conflicting family obligations."
The Thurgood Marshall Dissent (Well, Concurrence)
While the whole court agreed the lower courts messed up, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a separate opinion because he was worried about a loophole the other justices left open.
The main opinion suggested that if a company could prove that having young kids actually made women less effective at their jobs (like higher absenteeism), it might be a "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification" (BFOQ).
Marshall hated that.
He argued that the law shouldn't allow for "ancient canards" or stereotypes about a woman's "proper domestic role" to justify discrimination. He believed the standards had to be the same across the board. If you’re worried about people missing work, you test for reliability—you don’t just ban all moms.
Why You Should Care Today
You might think, "Okay, that was 50 years ago. We've moved on."
Kinda. But not really.
The "Motherhood Penalty" is still a massive thing in corporate America. Studies still show that mothers are often perceived as less committed or less competent than fathers or women without children. Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. is the foundation for every lawsuit involving:
- Pregnancy discrimination.
- Refusal to promote mothers to "high-stress" roles.
- Asking "Who's going to watch the kids?" during a job interview.
If you're an employer, this case is a reminder that your "common sense" assumptions about family roles are a legal minefield. If you wouldn't apply a rule to a father, you cannot apply it to a mother. Period.
Actionable Takeaways for the Modern Workplace
If you’re navigating the hiring world today, here is how the legacy of Ida Phillips protects you—or how you should protect your business:
- Standardize the Interview: Ask the exact same questions to every candidate. If you feel the need to ask about travel flexibility, ask the man in the suit and the woman with the diaper bag in the car the same thing.
- Audit Your "Assumptions": If a manager says, "She probably won't want this promotion because she just had a baby," that is a direct violation of the spirit of the Phillips ruling. Let the individual decide their own career path.
- Focus on Performance, Not Status: Use objective metrics. If absenteeism is a problem, address the attendance of the specific employee. Don't create "classes" of people who are presumed to be unreliable.
- Know Your Rights: If you are ever told you aren't a "culture fit" because you have "too much going on at home," remember Ida Phillips. The law says your qualifications matter more than your family tree.
The case was eventually sent back to the lower courts to see if Martin Marietta could prove that being a mom of young kids actually hurt job performance. They couldn't. Ida Phillips never actually got that assembly line job—the litigation took years—but she paved the road for every working parent who came after her.
✨ Don't miss: Why the Apple Advertisement Think Different Campaign Still Works Today
Next Steps for Employers and Employees:
To ensure your workplace is compliant with modern interpretations of Title VII, review the EEOC’s guidelines on Caregiver Discrimination. These guidelines expand on the Phillips ruling to include protection for those caring for elderly parents or disabled family members, ensuring that "sex-plus" stereotypes don't quietly creep back into your performance reviews.