You’re applying for a job. You have the degree, the experience, and a killer resume. But then the interviewer looks you in the eye and asks, "So, who's watching your toddlers while you're at work?"
In 1966, this wasn't just a rude question. For Ida Phillips, it was a brick wall.
Ida was a mother of seven children living in Florida. She wanted a job as an assembly trainee at Martin Marietta Corp. (the company we now know as Lockheed Martin). The pay was good—about $100 to $125 a week, which was double what she made as a waitress. But when she tried to hand over her application, the company essentially told her to go home.
Their reason? She had preschool-aged children.
The kicker was that the company had no problem hiring men with preschool-aged children. This double standard sparked Phillips v Martin Marietta, the very first sex-discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ever reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The "Sex-Plus" Loophole That Almost Broke the Law
Before this case, companies used a sneaky legal theory called "sex-plus" discrimination.
Basically, Martin Marietta argued they weren’t discriminating against all women. In fact, 75-80% of the people they hired for that assembly job were women. Their defense was simple: "We love hiring women! We just don't hire women plus preschool kids."
The lower courts actually bought this logic.
Both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the company. They reasoned that because the policy didn't exclude all women, it wasn't "sex discrimination" as defined by the law. They even claimed that the "responsibilities of men and women with small children are not the same," essentially saying it was okay for employers to assume a mom would be less reliable than a dad.
Why the Supreme Court Stepped In
When the case reached the Supreme Court in 1971, the justices weren't having it.
The Court issued a short, punchy per curiam opinion. They ruled that you cannot have one hiring policy for women and a different one for men just because they have kids. Section 703(a) of the Civil Rights Act requires people with "like qualifications" to be treated the same, regardless of their sex.
Honestly, it’s a bit of a "duh" moment today, but back then, it was revolutionary. It shut down the idea that you could bypass civil rights laws by adding a "plus" factor (like marriage or parenthood) to the discrimination.
What Most People Get Wrong About the Ruling
While Ida Phillips technically won, the victory was kinda messy.
📖 Related: Why the US and India Trade Deal Still Hasn't Happened
The Supreme Court didn't say discrimination is never allowed. They left a tiny, dangerous door open called the BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualification).
The justices suggested that if a company could prove that having young children made women (and not men) significantly less capable of doing the job, the policy might be legal. This part of the ruling frustrated many activists. Justice Thurgood Marshall, the only dissenter on this specific point, wrote a scorching concurrence.
Marshall argued that the law was meant to end "ancient canards" and stereotypes about a woman’s "proper role." He didn't want companies to even have the chance to prove that mothers were "worse" employees. He believed the law demanded a uniform standard for everyone, period.
The Real-World Impact Today
Even though this happened decades ago, Phillips v Martin Marietta is the reason your boss can't officially fire you for being a "working mom" while keeping the "working dads" on the payroll.
It laid the groundwork for modern cases involving:
🔗 Read more: PPP Loan Look Up: How to Find Who Got Paid and Where the Money Went
- Pregnancy Discrimination: Building on the idea that "sex plus" a physical condition is still sex discrimination.
- Caregiver Bias: Protecting employees from being passed over for promotions because a manager assumes they’ll be "distracted" by family.
- LGBTQ+ Rights: In the 2020 Bostock decision, the Court used similar logic to explain that firing someone for being gay is sex discrimination (because you wouldn't fire a person of the opposite sex for being attracted to women).
Actionable Insights for the Modern Workplace
If you’re a professional or an employer, the legacy of this case means you need to watch out for "hidden" policies that target subgroups.
For Employees: If you notice that your company offers flexible hours to fathers but "expects" mothers to be at their desks until 6 PM, that’s a red flag. The law doesn't just protect you as a woman; it protects you from being treated differently than a man in the same situation. Document everything.
For Employers: Audit your hiring criteria. If you have any requirement that applies to one gender but not the other—even if it's based on "traditional" family roles—you're begging for a lawsuit. Ensure that your performance standards are gender-neutral. If you require "no travel," that must apply to the dads on the team just as strictly as the moms.
Know Your Rights: The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) still uses the Phillips precedent to fight "caregiver discrimination." If you feel you've been sidelined because of family obligations that don't seem to bother your male colleagues, you may have a Title VII claim.
The days of "men's jobs" and "women's jobs" are legally over, thanks to a waitress from Orlando who just wanted a better life for her seven kids.
Next Steps for Your Career Health:
- Review your employee handbook for any language that distinguishes between "maternity" and "paternity" benefits in a way that might be discriminatory.
- Research "Caregiver Discrimination" guidelines on the official EEOC website to see how these protections have evolved since 1971.
- Consult with an employment attorney if you feel a "sex-plus" policy is currently limiting your upward mobility at work.