covering “everybody in the United States” including “white men and white women and all Americans.” Id. at 2578. Congresswoman Griffiths, however, responded that when a qualified white woman is denied a job because she is a woman, she has no recourse without the amendment. Id. at 2579. To combat such discrimination, the House adopted Congressman Smith’s amendment, adding “sex” as a prohibited basis for discrimination. While Congress’ particular focus in amending Title VII to prohibit discrimination on the basis of “sex” was to ensure equal employment rights for women, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Act’s broad language to protect both men and women. See, e.g., Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669, 676, 103 S.Ct. 2622, 2627-28, 77 L.Ed.2d 89 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Examining the legislative history of the
holding that insurance plan that provided less extensive pregnancy benefits to married male employees than to married female employees discriminated against males in violation of title vii holding that white female had standing under title vii to challenge her employees alleged racial discrimination against blacks holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original holding that an employers policy requiring female employees to make larger pension fund contributions than male employees was discriminatory on its face in violation of title vii