Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented is whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, pre-empts a state statute that re*275quires employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy.

HH

California s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov’t Code Ann. § 12900 et seq. (West 1980 and Supp. 1986), is a comprehensive statute that prohibits discrimination in employment and housing. In September 1978, California amended the FEHA to proscribe certain forms of employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. See Cal. Labor Code Ann. §1420.35, 1978 Cal. Stats., ch. 1321, §1, pp. 4320-4322 (West Supp. 1979), now codified at Cal. Gov’t Code Ann. § 12945(b)(2) (West 1980).1 Subdivision (b)(2) — the provision at issue here — is the only portion of the statute that applies to employers subject to Title VII. See *276§ 12945(e).2 It requires these employers to provide female employees an unpaid pregnancy disability leave of up to four months. Respondent Fair Employment and Housing Commission, the state agency authorized to interpret the FEHA,3 has construed § 12945(b)(2) to require California employers to reinstate an employee returning from such pregnancy leave to the job she previously held, unless it is no longer available due to business necessity. In the latter case, the employer must make a reasonable, good-faith effort to place the employee in a substantially similar job.4 The statute does not compel employers to provide paid leave to pregnant employees. Accordingly, the only benefit pregnant workers actually derive from § 12945(b)(2) is a qualified right to reinstatement.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., also prohibits various forms of employment *277discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of sex. However, in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976), this Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was not sex discrimination under Title VII.5 In response to the Gilbert decision, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), 42 U. S. C. §2000e(k). The PDA specifies that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.6

*278rH l-H

Petitioner California Federal Savings & Loan Association (Cal Fed) is a federally chartered savings and loan association based in Los A.ngeles; it is an employer covered by both Title VII and §l2IÍ45(b)(2)^ Cal Fed has a facially neutral leave policy that permits" employees who have completed three months of service to take unpaid leaves of absence for a variety of reasons, including disability and pregnancy. Although it is Cal Fed’s policy to try to provide an employee taking unpaid leave with a similar position upon returning, Cal Fed expressly reserves the right to terminate an employee who has taken a leave of absence if a similar position is not available.

Lillian Garland was employed by Cal Fed as a receptionist for several years. In January 1982, she took a pregnancy disability leave. When she was able to return to work in April of that year, Garland notified Cal Fed, but was informed that her job had been filled and that there were no receptionist or similar positions available. Garland filed a complaint with respondent Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which issued an administrative accusation against Cal Fed on her behalf.7' Respondent" charged Cal Fed with violating § 12945(b)(2) of the FEHA.' 'Prior to .the scheduled hearing before respondent Fair Employment and Housing Commission, Cal Fed, joined by petitioners Merchants and Manufacturers Association and the California Chamber of Commerce,8 brought this action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. *279They sought a declaration that § 12945(b)(2) is inconsistent with and pre-empted by Title VII and an injunction against enforcement of the section.9 The District Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment. 33 EPD ¶ 34,227, p. 32781, 34 FEP Cases 562 (1984). Citing Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U. S. 669 (1983),10 the court stated that “California employers who comply with state law are subject to reverse discrimination suits under Title VII brought by temporarily disabled males who do not receive the same treatment as female employees disabled by pregnancy . . . .” 34 FEP Cases, at 568. On this basis, the District Court held that “California state law and the policies of interpretation and enforcement. . . which require preferential treatment of female employees disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions are pre-empted by Title VII and are null, void, invalid and inoperative under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.” Ibid. 11

*280The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 758 F. 2d 390 (1985). It held that “the district court’s conclusion that section 12945(b)(2) discriminates against men on the basis of pregnancy defies common sense, misinterprets case law, and flouts Title VII and the PDA.” Id., at 393 (footnote omitted). Based on its own reading of Newport News, the Court of Appeals found that the PDA does not “demand that state law be blind to pregnancy’s existence.” 758 F. 2d, at 395. The court held that in enacting the PDA Congress intended “to construct a floor beneath which pregnancy disability benefits may not drop — not a ceiling above which they may not rise. ” Id., at 396. Because it found that the California statute furthers the goal of equal employment opportunity for women, the Court of Appeals concluded: “Title VII does not preempt a state law that guarantees pregnant women a certain number of pregnancy disability leave days, because this is neither inconsistent with, nor unlawful under, Title VII.” Ibid.

We granted certiorari, 474 U. S. 1049 (1986), and we now affirm.

III

A

In determining whether a state statute is pre-empted by federal law and therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, our sole task is to ascertain the intent of Congress. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85, 95 (1983); Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U. S. 497, 504 (1978). Federal law may supersede state law in several different ways. First, when acting within constitutional limits, Congress is empowered to pre-empt state law by so stating in express terms. E. g., Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 525 (1977). Second, congressional in*281tent to pre-empt state law in a particular area may be inferred where the scheme of federal regulation is sufficiently comprehensive to make reasonable the inference that Congress “left no room” for supplementary state regulation. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947). Neither of these bases for pre-emption exists in this case. Congress has explicitly disclaimed any intent categorically to pre-empt state law or to “occupy the field” of employment discrimination law. See 42 U. S. C. §§2000e-7 and2000h-4.

As a third alternative, in those areas where Congress has not completely displaced state regulation, federal law may nonetheless pre-empt state law to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law. Such a conflict occurs either because “compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility,” Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or because the state law stands “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and. objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941). See Michigan Canners & Freezers Assn., Inc. v. Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Bd., 467 U. S. 461, 478 (1984); Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141, 156 (1982). Nevertheless, pre-emption is not to be lightly presumed. See Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981).

This third basis for pre-emption is at issue in this case. In two sections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, §§708 and 1104, Congress has indicated that state laws will be pre-empted only if they actually conflict with federal law. Section 708 of Title VII provides:

“Nothing in this title shall be deemed to exempt or relieve any person from any liability, duty, penalty, or punishment provided by any present or future law of any State or political subdivision of a State, other than any such law which purports to require or permit the doing of any act which would be an unlawful employment *282practice under this title.” 78 Stat. 262, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-7.

Section 1104 of Title XI, applicable to all titles of the Civil Rights Act, establishes the following standard for preemption:

“Nothing contained in any title of this Act shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which any such title operates to the exclusion of State laws on the same subject matter, nor shall any provision of this Act be construed as invalidating any provision of State law unless such provision is inconsistent with any of the purposes of this Act, or any provision thereof.” 78 Stat. 268, 42 U. S. C. §2000h-4.

Accordingly, there is no need to infer congressional intent to pre-empt state laws from the substantive provisions of Title VII; these two sections provide a “reliable indicium of congressional intent with respect to state authority” to regulate employment practice. Malone v. White Motor Corp., supra, at 505.

Sections 708 and 1104 severely limit Title VII’s preemptive effect. Instead of pre-empting state fair employment laws, § 708 “‘simply left them where they were before the enactment of title VIL’ ” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., supra, at 103, n. 24 (quoting Pervel Industries, Inc. v. Connecticut Comm’n on Human Rights and Opportunities, 468 F. Supp. 490, 493 (Conn. 1978), affirmance order, 603 F. 2d 214 (CA2 1979), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 1031 (1980)). Similarly, § 1104 was intended primarily to “assert the intention of Congress to preserve existing civil rights laws.” 110 Cong. Rec. 2788 (1964) (remarks of Rep. Meader). See also H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 59 (1963) (additional views of Rep. Meader).12 The narrow scope of pre*283emption available under §§708 and 1104 reflects the importance Congress attached to state antidiscrimination laws in achieving Title VII’s goal of equal employment opportunity. See generally Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S., at 101-102; Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U. S. 461, 468-469, 472, 477 (1982); New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U. S. 54, 63-65 (1980).13 The legislative history of the PDA also supports a narrow interpretation of these provisions,14 as does our opinion in Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., supra. 15

In order to decide whether the California statute requires or permits employers to violate Title VII, as amended by the PDA, or is inconsistent with the purposes of the statute, we *284must determine whether the PDA prohibits the States from requiring employers to provide reinstatement to pregnant workers, regardless of their, policy for disabled workers generally.

B

Petitioners argue that the language of the federal statute itself unambiguously rejects California’s “special treatment” approach to pregnancy discrimination, thus rendering any resort to the legislative history unnecessary. They contend that the second clause of the PDA forbids an employer to treat pregnant employees any differently than other disabled employees. Because “Tt]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone’” of the pre-emption inquiry, Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U. S., at 504 (quoting Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn, 375 U. S. 96, 103 (1963)), however, we must examine the PDA’s language against the background of its legislative history and historical context. As to the language of the PDA, “[i]t is a ‘familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers.’” Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U. S. 193, 201 (1979) (quoting Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 459 (1892)). See Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group, Inc., 426 U. S. 1, 10 (1976); United States v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 310 U. S. 534, 543-544 (1940).

It is well established that the PDA was passed in reaction to this Court’s decision in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976). “When Congress amended Title VII in 1978, it unambiguously expressed its disapproval of both the holding and the reasoning of the Court in the Gilbert decision.” Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U. S., at 678. By adding pregnancy to the definition of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII, the first clause of the PDA reflects Congress’ disapproval of the reasoning in Gilbert. Newport News, supra, at 678-679, and *285n. 17 (citing legislative history). Rather than imposing a limitation on the remedial purpose of the PDA, we believe that the second clause was intended to overrule the holding in Gilbert and to illustrate how discrimination against pregnancy is to be remedied. Cf. 462 U. S., at 678, n. 14 (“The meaning of the first clause is not limited by the specific language in the second clause, which explains the application of the general principle to women employees”); see also id., at 688 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).16 Accordingly, subject to certain limitations,17 we agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Congress intended the PDA to be “a floor beneath which pregnancy disability benefits may not drop — not a ceiling above which they may not rise.” 758 F. 2d, at 396.

The context in which Congress considered the issue of pregnancy discrimination supports this view of the PDA. Congress had before it extensive evidence of discrimination against pregnancy, particularly in disability and health insurance programs like those challenged in Gilbert and Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U. S. 136 (1977).18 The Reports, debates, and hearings make abundantly clear that Congress *286intended the PDA to provide relief for working women and to end discrimination against pregnant workers.19 In contrast to the thorough account of discrimination against pregnant workers, the legislative history is devoid of any discussion of preferential treatment of pregnancy,20 beyond acknowledgments of the existence of state statutes providing for such preferential treatment. See infra, at 287. Opposition to the PDA came from those concerned with the cost of including pregnancy in health and disability-benefit plans and the application of the bill to abortion,21 not from those who favored special accommodation of pregnancy.

In support of their argument that the PDA prohibits employment practices that favor pregnant women, petitioners and several amici cite statements in the legislative history to the effect that the PDA does not require employers to extend any benefits to pregnant women that they do not already provide to other disabled employees. For example, the House Report explained that the proposed legislation “does not re*287quire employers to treat pregnant employees in any particular manner. . . . H. R. 6075 in no way requires the institution of any new programs where none currently exist.”22 We do not interpret these references to support petitioners’ construction of the statute. On the contrary, if Congress had intended to prohibit preferential treatment, it would have been the height of understatement to say only that the legislation would not require such conduct. It is hardly conceivable that Congress would have extensively discussed only its intent not to require preferential treatment if in fact it had intended to prohibit such treatment.

We also find it significant that Congress was aware of state laws similar to California’s but apparently did not consider them inconsistent with the PDA. In the debates and Reports on the bill, Congress repeatedly acknowledged the existence of state antidiscrimination laws that prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.23 Two of the States mentioned then required employers to provide reasonable leave to pregnant workers.24 After citing these state laws, *288Congress failed to evince the requisite “clear and manifest purpose” to supersede them. See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm’n, 461 U. S. 190, 206 (1983). To the contrary, both the House and Senate Reports suggest that these laws would continue to have effect under the PDA.25

Title VII, as amended by the PDA, and California’s pregnancy disability leave statute share a common goal. The purpose of Title VII is “to achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of . . . employees over other employees.” Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 429-430 (1971). See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U. S. 69, 75, n. 7 (1984); Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747, 763 (1976); Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 44 (1974); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 800 (1973). Rather than limiting existing Title VII principles and objectives, the PDA extends *289them to cover pregnancy.26 As Senator Williams, a sponsor of the Act, stated: “The entire thrust. . . behind this legislation is to guarantee women the basic right to participate fully and equally in the workforce, without denying them the fundamental right to full participation in family life. ” 123 Cong. Rec. 29658 (1977).

Section 12945(b)(2) also promotes equal employment opportunity. By requiring employers to reinstate women after a reasonable pregnancy disability leave, § 12945(b)(2) ensures that they will not lose their jobs on account of pregnancy disability.27 California’s approach is consistent with the dissenting opinion of Justice Brennan in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, which Congress adopted in enacting the PDA. Referring to Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S. 563 (1974), a Title VI decision, Justice Brennan stated:

“[DJiscrimination is a social phenomenon encased in a social context and, therefore, unavoidably tákes its meaning from the desired end products of the relevant legislative enactment, end products that may demand due consideration of the uniqueness of the ‘disadvantaged’ individuals. A realistic understanding of conditions found in today’s labor environment warrants taking pregnancy into account in fashioning disability policies.” 429 U. S., at 159 (footnote omitted).

By “taking pregnancy into account,” California’s pregnancy disability-leave statute allows women, as well as men, to have families without losing their jobs.

*290We emphasize the limited nature of the benefits § 12945 (b)(2) provides. The statute is narrowly drawn to cover only the period of actual physical disability on account of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Accordingly, unlike the protective labor legislation prevalent earlier in this century,28 § 12945(b)(2) does not reflect archaic or stereotypical notions about pregnancy and the abilities of pregnant workers. A statute based on such stereotypical assumptions would, of course, be inconsistent with Title VIPs goal of equal employment opportunity. See, e. g., Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 709 (1978); Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U. S. 542, 545 (1971) (Marshall, J., concurring).

C

Moreover, even if we agreed with petitioners’ construction of the PDA, we would nonetheless reject their argument that the California statute requires employers to violate Title VII.29 Section 12945(b)(2) does not prevent employers from *291complying with both the federal law (as petitioners construe it) and the state law. This is not a case where “compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility,” Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S., at 142-143, or where there is an “inevitable collision between the two schemes of regulation.” Id., at 143.30 Section 12945(b)(2) does not compel California employers to treat pregnant workers better than other disabled employees; it merely establishes benefits that employers must, at a minimum, provide to pregnant workers. Employers are free to give comparable benefits to other disabled employees, thereby treating “women affected by pregnancy” no better than “other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” Indeed, at oral argument, petitioners conceded that compliance with both statutes “is theoretically possible.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6.

Petitioners argue that “extension” of the state statute to cover other employees would be inappropriate in the absence of a clear indication that this is what the California Legislature intended. They cite cases in which this Court has declined to rewrite underinclusive state statutes found to violate the Equal Protection Clause. See, e. g., Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Co., 446 U. S. 142, 152-153 (1980); Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U. S. 380, 392-393, n. 13 (1979). This argument is beside the point. Extension is a remedial option to be exercised by a court once a statute is *292found to be invalid.31 See, e. g., Califano v. Westcott, 443 U. S. 76, 89 (1979) (quoting Welsh v. United States, 398 U. S. 333, 361 (1970) (Harlan, J'., concurring in result)).

IV

Thus, petitioners’ facial challenge to § 12945(b)(2) fails. The statute is not pre-empted by Title VII, as amended by the PDA, because it is not inconsistent with the purposes of the federal statute, nor does it require the doing of an act which is unlawful under Title VII.32

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Justice Stevens,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) does not exist in a vacuum. As Justice White recognizes in his dissent, Congress did not intend to “put pregnancy in a class by itself within Title VII,” and the enactment of the PDA “did not mark a departure from Title VII principles.” Post, at 298-299. But this realization does not lead me to support Justice White’s position; rather, I believe that the PDA’s posture as part of Title VII compels rejection of his argument that the PDA mandates complete neutrality and forbids all beneficial treatment of pregnancy.1

*293In Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U. S. 193 (1979), the Court rejected the argument that Title VII prohibits all preferential treatment of the disadvantaged classes that the statute was enacted to protect. The plain words of Title VII, which would have led to a contrary result, were read in the context of the statute’s enactment and its purposes.2 In this case as well, the language of the Act seems to mandate treating preg*294nant employees the same as other employees. I cannot, however, ignore the fact that the PDA is a definitional section of Title VIPs prohibition against gender-based discrimination. Had Weber interpreted Title VII as requiring neutrality, I would agree with Justice White that the PDA should be interpreted that way as well. But since the Court in Weber interpreted Title VII to draw a distinction between discrimination against members of the protected class and special preference in favor of members of that class, I do not accept the proposition that the PDA requires absolute neutrality.

I therefore conclude that Justice Marshall’s view, which holds that the PDA allows some preferential treatment of pregnancy, is more consistent with our interpretation of Title VII than Justice White’s view is. This is not to say, however, that all preferential treatment of pregnancy is automatically beyond the scope of the PDA.3 Rather, as with other parts of Title VII, preferential treatment of the disadvantaged class is only permissible so long as it is consistent with “accomplish[ing] the goal that Congress designed Title VII to'achieve.” Weber, supra, at 204.4 That goal has been *295characterized as seeking “to achieve equality of employment opportunities and to remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of. . . employees over other employees.” Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 429-430 (1971).

It is clear to me, as it is to the Court,5 and was to the Court of Appeals,6 that the California statute meets this test. Thus, I agree that a California employer would not violate the PDA were it to comply with California’s statute without affording the same protection to men suffering somewhat similar disabilities.

Justice Scalia,

concurring in the judgment.

The only provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 whose effect on pre-emption need be considered in the present case is §708 of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-7. Although both that section and § 1104, 42 U. S. C. §2000h-4, are described by the majority as pre-emption provisions, they are more precisely antipre-emption provisions, prescribing that nothing in Title VII (in the case of § 708) and nothing in the entire Civil Rights Act (in the case of § 1104) shall be deemed to preempt state law unless certain conditions are met. The exceptions set forth in the general § 1104 ban on pre-emption (“inconsisten[cy] with any of the purposes of this Act, or any provision thereof”) are somewhat broader than the single exception set forth in the Title VII § 708 ban. Because the Pregnancy Disability Act (PDA) is part of Title VII, the more expansive prohibition of pre-emption particularly applicable to that Title applies. If that precludes pre-emption of Cal. Govt. Code Ann. § 12945(b)(2) (West 1980), it is unnecessary to inquire whether § 1104 would do so.

Section 708 narrows the pre-emptive scope of the PDA so that it pre-empts only laws which “purpor[t] to require or permit the doing of any act which would be an unlawful employ*296ment practice” under the Title. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-7. Thus, whether or not the PDA prohibits discriminatorily favorable disability treatment for pregnant women, § 12945(b)(2) of the California Code cannot be pre-empted, since it does not remotely purport to require or permit any refusal to accord federally mandated equal treatment to others similarly situated. No more is needed to decide this case.

The majority not only ignores the clear antipre-emptive effect of § 708, but, even proceeding on the basis of its more generalized pre-emption analysis, decides more than is necessary. Its reasoning is essentially as follows: It is consistent with the requirements and purposes of the PDA for a State to require special treatment for pregnancy disability (Part III-B); and besides, the state law here at issue does not require special treatment for pregnancy disability (Part III-C). By parity of analysis, we can decide any issue, so long as the facts before us either do or do not present it. There are proper occasions for alternative holdings, where one of the alternatives does not eliminate the jurisdictional predicate for the other — though even in that situation the practice is more appropriate for lower courts than for this Court, whose first arrow runs no risk of being later adjudged to have missed its mark. But where, as here, it is entirely clear that an issue of law is not presented by the facts of the case, it is beyond our jurisdiction to reach it.

I am fully aware that it is more convenient for the employers of California and the California Legislature to have us interpret the PDA prematurely. It has never been suggested, however, that the constitutional prohibition upon our rendering of advisory opinions is a doctrine of convenience. I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the ground that § 12945(b)(2) of the California Code does not purport to require or permit any act that would be an unlawful employment practice under any conceivable interpretation of the PDA, and therefore, by virtue of § 708, cannot be pre-empted.

*297Justice White,

with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Powell join, dissenting.

I disagree with the Court that Cal. Govt. Code Ann. § 12945(b)(2) (West 1980) is not pre-empted by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), 92 Stat. 2076, codified at 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(k), and § 708 of Title VII. Section 703(a) of Title VII, 78 Stat. 255, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a), forbids discrimination in the terms of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The PDA gave added meaning to discrimination on the basis of sex:

“The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ [in § 703(a) of this Title] include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work . . . .” §'2000e(k).

The second clause quoted above could not be clearer: it mandates that pregnant employees “shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes” as nonpregnant employees similarly situated with respect to their ability or inability to work. This language leaves no room for preferential treatment of pregnant workers. The majority would avoid its plain meaning by misapplying our interpretation of the clause in Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U. S. 669, 678, n. 14 (1983). Ante, at 285. The second clause addresses only female employees and was not directly implicated in Newport News because the pregnant persons at issue in that case were spouses of male employees. We therefore stated in Newport News that the second clause had only explanatory or illustrative significance. We did not indicate in any way, however, that the *298second clause does not mean exactly what it says in a situation where it is directly implicated.

Contrary to the mandate of the PDA, California law requires every employer to have a disability leave policy for pregnancy even if it has none for any other disability. An employer complies with California law if it has a leave policy for pregnancy but denies it for every other disability. On its face, § 12945(b)(2) is in square conflict with the PDA and is therefore pre-empted. Because the California law permits employers to single out pregnancy for preferential treatment and therefore to violate Title VII, it is not saved by §708 which limits pre-emption of state laws to those that require or permit an employer to commit an unfair employment practice.1

The majority nevertheless would save the California law on two grounds. First, it holds that the PDA does not require disability from pregnancy to be treated the same as other disabilities; instead, it forbids less favorable, but permits more favorable, benefits for pregnancy disability. The express command of the PDA is unambiguously to the contrary, and the legislative history casts no doubt on that mandate.

The legislative materials reveal Congress’ plain intent not to put pregnancy in a class by itself within Title VII, as the majority does with its “floor . . . not a ceiling” approach. Ante, at 285. The Senate Report clearly stated:

“By defining sex discrimination to include discrimination against pregnant women, the bill rejects the view that employers may treat pregnancy and its incidents as sui generis, without regard to its functional comparability to other conditions. Under this bill, the treatment of *299pregnant women in covered employment must focus not on their condition alone but on the actual effects of that condition on their ability to work. Pregnant women who are able to work must be permitted to work on the same conditions as other employees; and when they are not able to work for medical reasons, they must be accorded the same rights, leave privileges and other benefits, as other workers who are disabled from working.”2

The House Report similarly stressed that the legislation did not mark a departure from Title VII principles:

“It must be emphasized that this legislation, operating as part of Title VII, prohibits only discriminatory treatment. Therefore, it does not require employers to treat pregnant employees in any particular manner with respect to hiring, permitting them to continue working, providing sick leave, furnishing medical and hospital benefits, providing disability benefits, or any other matter. H. R. 6075 in no way requires the institution of any new programs where none currently exist. The bill would simply require that pregnant women be treated the same as other employees on the basis of their ability or inability to work.”3

*300The majority correctly reports that Congress focused on discrimination against, rather than preferential treatment of, pregnant workers. There is only one direct reference in the legislative history to preferential treatment. Senator Brooke stated during the Senate debate: “I would emphasize most strongly that S. 995 in no way provides special disability benefits for working women. They have not demanded, nor asked, for such benefits. They have asked only to be treated with fairness, to be accorded the same employment rights as men.”4 Given the evidence before Congress of the widespread discrimination against pregnant workers, it is probable that most Members of Congress did not seriously consider the possibility that someone would want to afford preferential treatment to pregnant workers. The parties and their amici argued vigorously to this Court the policy implications of preferential treatment of pregnant workers. In favor of preferential treatment it was urged with conviction that preferential treatment merely enables women, like men, to have children without losing their jobs. In opposition to preferential treatment it was urged with equal conviction that preferential treatment represents a resurgence of the 19th-century protective legislation which perpetuated sex-role stereotypes and which impeded women in their efforts to take their rightful place in the workplace. See, e. g., Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412, 421-423 (1908); Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130, 141 (1873) (Bradley, J., concurring). It is not the place of this Court, however, to resolve this policy dispute. Our task is to interpret Congress’ intent in enacting the PDA. Congress’ silence in its consideration of the PDA with respect to preferential treatment of pregnant workers cannot fairly be interpreted to abrogate the plain statements in the legislative history, not to mention the language of the statute, that equality of treatment was to be the guiding principle of the PDA.

*301Congress’ acknowledgment of state antidiscrimination laws does not support a contrary inference. Ante, at 287-288. The most extensive discussion of state laws governing pregnancy discrimination is found in the House Report.5 It was reported that six States, Alaska, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Montana, and the District of Columbia specifically included pregnancy in their fair employment practices laws. In 12 additional States, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin, the prohibition on sex discrimination in the state fair employment practices law had been interpreted, either by a state court or the state enforcement agency, to require equal treatment of pregnant workers. Finally, five States, California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, had included pregnancy in their temporary disability laws under which private employers are required to provide partial wage replacement for temporary disabilities. The Report noted, however, that whereas California, New Jersey, and New York covered complications from pregnancy on the same basis as other disabilities, California, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island set maximum limits on the coverage required for disability associated with normal childbirth. The Report did not in any way set apart the Connecticut and Montana statutes, on which the majority relies, from the other state statutes. The House Report gave no indication that these statutes required anything more than equal treatment. Indeed, the state statutes were considered, not in the context of pre-emption, but in the context of a discussion of health insurance costs. The House Report expressly stated: “The significance of this State coverage” is that “many employers are already under a State law obligation to provide benefits to pregnant disabled workers. Passage of the bill thus has little or no economic impact on such employers.”6

*302Nor does anything in the legislative history from the Senate side indicate that it carefully considered the state statutes, including those of Connecticut and Montana, and expressly endorsed their provisions. The Senate Report noted that “25 States presently interpret their own fair employment practices laws to prohibit sex discrimination based on pregnancy and childbirth,” and Senator Williams presented during the Senate debate a list of States which required coverage for pregnancy and pregnancy-related disabilities, but there was no analysis of their provisions.7 The majority seems to interpret Senator Javits’ acknowledgment that several state legislatures, including New York, his own State, had mandated certain benefits for pregnant employees as an unqualified endorsement of those state statutes. Ante, at 287, n. 23. Later, however, when pressed by Senator Hatch about the fact that the New York statute limited the required coverage of disability caused by pregnancy to eight weeks, Senator Javits had no hesitation in expressing his disagreement with the New York statute.8 Passing reference to state statutes without express recognition of their content and without express endorsement is insufficient in my view to override the PDA’s clear equal-treatment mandate, expressed both in the statute and its legislative history.

The Court’s second, and equally strange, ground is that even if the PDA does prohibit special benefits for pregnant women, an employer may still comply with both the California law and the PDA: it can adopt the specified leave policies for pregnancy and at the same time afford similar benefits for all other disabilities. This is untenable. California surely had no intent to require employers to provide general disability leave benefits. It intended to prefer pregnancy and went no further. Extension of these benefits to the entire work force would be a dramatic increase in the scope of the state *303law and would impose a significantly greater burden on California employers. That is the province of the California Legislature. See Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Co., 446 U. S. 142, 152-153 (1980); Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U. S. 380, 392-393, n. 13 (1979); Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 210, n. 24 (1976). Nor can § 12945(b)(2) be saved by applying Title VII in tandem with it, such that employers would be required to afford reinstatement rights to pregnant workers as a matter of state law but would be required to afford the same rights to all other workers as a matter of federal law. The text of the PDA does not speak to this question but it is clear from the legislative history that Congress did not intend for the PDA to impose such burdens on employers. As recognized by the majority, opposition to the PDA came from those concerned with the cost of including pregnancy in health and disability benefit plans. Ante, at 286. The House Report acknowledged these concerns and explained that the bill “in no way requires the institution of any new programs where none currently exist.”9 The Senate Report gave a similar assurance.10 In addition, legislator after legislator stated during the floor debates that the PDA would not require an employer to institute a disability benefits program if it did not already have one in effect.11 Congress intended employers to be free to *304provide any level of disability benefits they wished — or none at all — as long as pregnancy was not a factor in allocating such benefits. The conjunction of § 12945(b)(2) and the PDA requires California employers to implement new minimum disability leave programs. Reading the state and federal statutes together in this fashion yields a result which Congress expressly disavowed.

In sum, preferential treatment of pregnant workers is prohibited by Title VII, as amended by the PDA. Section 12945(b)(2) of the California Government Code, which extends preferential benefits for pregnancy, is therefore pre-empted. It is not saved by § 708 because it purports to authorize employers to commit an unfair employment practice forbidden by Title VII.12

AMENDED OPINION

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Leigh Cline (“Cline”) brought a pregnancy discrimination suit against Defendants-Appellees, Catholic Diocese of Toledo, et al., (“St.Paul”), under Title VII and Chapter 4112 of the Ohio Revised Code. She also asserted claims for breach of contract and promissory estop-pel. Cline appeals the summary judgment granted by the district court in favor of St. Paul on all four claims. For the following reasons, we reverse in part and affirm in part.

I.

St. Paul Elementary and High School employed Leigh Cline as a teacher from June 1994 until St. Paul decided not to renew her contract after the 1995-1996 year. St. Paul is a parish of the Roman Catholic Church located within the Catholic Diocese of Toledo. The defendants-appellees in this case include St. Paul Elementary School, the Catholic Diocese of Toledo, the Catholic Diocesan School of Toledo and Father Herbert J. Willman. Father Willman is responsible for all religious matters within the parish, including oversight of the parish schools.

After graduating from Bowling Green in 1993, Cline began teaching at St. Paul as an elementary substitute teacher. In June 1994, she was awarded a full-time eighth-grade teaching position for the 1994-1995 school year, assuming religion and math class duties, and also teaching high school math and coaching girls’ basketball. After her first year, the school renewed Cline’s teaching contract for the 1995-1996 school term and granted her request to teach the second grade. Cline’s position as a second-grade teacher involved significant training and ministry in the Catholic faith. She provided daily religious instruction to students, took students to Mass on a regular basis, and prepared her second-grade students for the sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Communion. Cline acknowledged that her position at St. Paul required her to “build and live Christian community,” “integrate learning and faith,” and “instill a sense of mission” in her students.

For each of her two years at St. Paul, Cline’s employment was governed by the standard St. Paul one-year employment contract (titled the “Teacher-Minister Contract”) (“Contract”) as well as the “Affirmations for Employment in the Diocese of Toledo” (“the Affirmation”), both of which she signed for each year. In addition to laying out basic terms of salary, duration and other routine aspects of the *656position, the Contract incorporates the provisions of the Affirmation document as part of its terms and conditions. The Affirmation outlines the ministerial responsibilities of the “teacher/minister,” including the following provisions: 1) a statement that the signer “believe[s] that the work of the Catholic Church, [its agencies] and institutions has characteristics that make it different from the work of other agencies and institutions”; 2) a statement that the signer will “work[] diligently to maintain and strengthen the Catholic Church and its members,” and that “[b]y word and example, [the signer] will reflect the values of the Catholic Church;” 3) statements that the signer believes in “mutual trust” and “open communication;” and 4) a statement by the signer that she “is more than a professional.” J.A. at 96. The Contract also incorporates the Teacher Handbook, which states that the mission of the school is to “instill in our children the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.” J.A. at 277.1 Neither the Teacher’s Handbook nor the Affirmation explicitly states, nor was Leigh Cline ever expressly informed — in writing, orally or otherwise — that premarital sex comprised a violation of the terms of either the Contract or the Affirmation.

In the fall of 1995, Cline and her boyfriend (now husband) Tom Cline met with Fr. Brickner, the associate pastor of St. Paul Church, to discuss their intention to marry. The Clines married at St. Paul in February 1996. In early March, Leigh Cline informed the assistant principal, Stephen Schumm, and other St. Paul teachers that she was pregnant. Around late March or early April, Cline became visibly pregnant and began to wear maternity clothing to school. Based on his observation of Cline’s pregnancy, Fr. Willman correctly concluded that she had engaged in premarital sex.2

On learning that she had engaged in premarital sex, St. Paul officials did not immediately terminate Cline. Instead, Fr. Willman considered “all options,” including immediate termination. Ultimately, according to Fr. Willman, he decided that the most appropriate course of action was to permit Cline to continue teaching for the remainder of the school year, without renewing her contract after the year had finished. On May 3, 1996, Fr. Willman advised Cline in a conference that “under the circumstances,” St. Paul “would not renew her contract or hire her for the next school year.” According to Fr. Willman’s deposition, the “circumstances” he was referring to were that “Leigh [] became pregnant before she got married.” J.A. at 536. In a formal letter explaining the decision not to renew her contract, sent May 4, Fr. Willman wrote:

We expect our teachers to be good, strong role models for our children.... It is stated in your contract, working agreement that “by word and example you will reflect the values of the Catholic Church.” ... [P]arents in the community have serious concerns about a teacher who marries and is expecting a child 5 months after the wedding date. We expect teachers and staff members at St. Paul to observe the 6 month preparation time for marriage.... The Church does not uphold sexual intercourse outside of marriage. We consider this a breach of contraci/working agreement.

J.A. at 313. Cline continued teaching at St. Paul through the end of the school year. Her child was born on July 10,1996.

*657Cline disputes some of St. Paul’s evidence about the events preceding her non-renewal. She argues that when Fr. Willman informed Cline of the decision not to renew, he only stated that it was due to her pregnancy so soon after marriage; according to Cline, he did not mention premarital sex. She also presents other evidence contradicting Fr. Will-man’s assertion that, after discovering her pregnancy, the school decided to retain her only through the remainder of the 1995-1996 school year. In particular, Cline received a glowing Teacher Performance Evaluation on April 19,1996, nearly two months after the school concluded that she had premarital sex. In addition to noting her “successful” performance in almost all of fifteen objective criteria, Principal Schumm praised Cline for “adjusting] very well” to the “busy and changing year in regard to [her] classroom reassignment and personal life.” J.A. at 183.3 Finally, the evaluation implied that a contract renewal would be forthcoming for the following year, concluding: “Your class of 2nd grade students is well managed and respectful. I would expect continued growth for the 1996-97 school year.” J.A. at 183.

On October 11,1996, Cline filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue, and on June 17, 1997, Cline filed her complaint in the district court claiming illegal sex and pregnancy discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Chapter 4112 of the Ohio Revised Code. She also brought claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. On January 30, 1998, defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. Finding that Cline had failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, the court granted summary judgment on April 3, 1998. This timely appeal followed.

II.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, using the same Rule 56(c) standard as the district court. See Terry Barr Sales Agency, Inc. v. All-Lock Co., Inc., 96 F.3d 174, 178 (6th Cir.1996). Under that standard, summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, we assess the factual evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See National Enterprises, Inc. v. Smith, 114 F.3d 561, 563 (6th Cir.1997). Merely alleging the existence of a factual dispute is insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion; rather, there must exist in the record a genuine issue of material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

III.

A.

Title VII’s prohibition on employment practices that discriminate “because of [an] individual’s sex,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l), applies with all its force to employers who discriminate on the basis of pregnancy. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k);4 Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 89-90, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983); Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669, 103 S.Ct. 2622, 77 L.Ed.2d 89 (1983); Boyd v. *658 Harding Academy of Memphis, Inc., 88 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir.1996) (“Congress manifested its belief that discrimination based on pregnancy constitutes discrimination based on sex.”)- Thus, a claim of discrimination on the basis of pregnancy “must be analyzed in the same manner as any other sex discrimination claim brought pursuant to Title VII.” Boyd, 88 F.3d at 413. Such a claim requires that the plaintiff first establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination by showing that 1) she was pregnant, 2) she was qualified for her job, 3) she was subjected to an adverse employment decision, and 4) there is a nexus between her pregnancy and the adverse employment decision. See id. In a termination case such as this one, a plaintiff meets the second prong by showing that she was performing “at a level which met [her] employer’s legitimate expectations.” McDonald v. Union Camp Corp., 898 F.2d 1155, 1160 (6th Cir.1990). If the plaintiff successfully establishes a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to articulate a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for its actions. Boyd, 88 F.3d at 413 (citing Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981)). If the defendant fails to satisfy this burden, plaintiff prevails. If the defendant satisfies this burden, then the presumption of intentional discrimination is negated; the employee must then prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant intentionally discriminated against her. She may do this by showing that the “nondiscriminatory” reasons the employer offered were not credible, but were merely a pretext for intentional discrimination. See id.; see also St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (stating that the factfinder’s “disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant” may, “together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination”).

The Congressional drafters of the 1964 Civil Rights Act recognized the sensitivity surrounding the status of religious groups and institutions. Thus, while Title VII exempts religious organizations for “discrimination based on religion,” it does not exempt them “with respect to all discrimination.... [ ] Title VII still applies ... to a religious institution charged with sex discrimination.” Boyd, 88 F.3d at 413; see also Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164, 1166 (4th Cir.1985) (“Title VII does not confer upon religious organizations a license to make [hiring decisions] on the basis of race, sex, or national origin.”). Because discrimination based on pregnancy is a clear form of discrimination based on sex, religious schools cannot discriminate based on pregnancy. See Boyd, 88 F.3d at 413-14; Ganzy v. Allen Christian Sch., 995 F.Supp. 340, 349 (E.D.N.Y.1998) (stating that restrictions on pregnancy “are not permitted because they are gender discriminatory by definition”); Dolter v. Wahlert High Sch., 483 F.Supp. 266, 270 (N.D.Iowa 1980) (stating that a school has violated Title VII if it terminates a plaintiff for pregnancy alone). In suits like Cline’s, courts have made clear that if the school’s purported “discrimination” is based on a policy of preventing nonmarital sexual activity which emanates from the religious and moral precepts of the school, and if that policy is applied equally to its male and female employees, then the school has not discriminated based on pregnancy in violation of Title VII. See Boyd, 88 F.3d at 414-15; Ganzy, 995 F.Supp. at 344; Dolter, 483 F.Supp. at 270.

The central question in this case, therefore, is whether St. Paul’s nonrenewal of Cline’s contract constituted discrimination based on her pregnancy as opposed to a gender-neutral enforcement of the school’s premarital sex policy. While the former violates Title VII, the latter does not. This is primarily a factual battle, to be resolved on summary judgment only if Cline presented insufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute over the material *659facts. Because we find that Cline put forth sufficient evidence to create such a dispute, we hold that summary judgment was inappropriate.

B.

The district court granted St. Paul’s motion for summary judgment, agreeing with the school’s arguments on all four of Cline’s claims.

First, the court found that Cline failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas because she did not satisfy the second prong required: showing she was qualified for the job.5 By engaging in premarital sex, she had violated both the Contract and Affirmation, and her promise under them “to live according to the principles of the Catholic Church.” J.A. at 332. Her own actions therefore rendered her unqualified for the teaching position. In making this conclusion, the district court reasoned that cases like Dolter, which rejected motions for summary judgment for similar pregnancy discrimination claims, were distinguishable because Cline had offered no proof that the premarital sex policy applied differently to men and women. In Dolter, such a showing was made.

The district court next reasoned that even if Cline had made out a prima facie case, she had still failed to show that St. Paul’s “nondiscriminatory” reason for the non-renewal was a mere pretext for pregnancy discrimination. In concluding so, the court parsed through the evidence of Fr. Willman’s statements, finding that they demonstrated that “it was [not] pregnancy [ ] that motivated the termination,” but the fact of premarital sex. J.A. at 338. The court distinguished the Ganzy case— where the district court refused to grant a motion of summary judgment for similar circumstances — by the fact that Ganzy had been able to show more decisively that the discrimination was rooted in her pregnancy.

The court also set aside Cline’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. The contract claim failed because the contract was “fully performed,” J.A. at 341, while the promissory estoppel claim failed because Cline did not show any detrimental reliance.

C.

Looking anew at the record, we conclude that the district court fundamentally misapplied the McDonnell Douglas test. Before we explain the nature of the court’s errors, we recite the “first principles” of McDonnell Douglas’s burden-shifting regime. The three-part inquiry provides “an allocation of the burden of production and an order for the presentation of proof in Title VII discriminatory-treatment cases.” Hicks, 509 U.S. at 506, 113 S.Ct. 2742; see Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 986, 108 S.Ct. 2777, 101 L.Ed.2d 827 (1988) (stating that the McDonnell Douglas regime is “meant only to aid courts and litigants in arranging the presentation of evidence”).6 *660The framework is designed to sharpen the inquiry to a “level of specificity” which best allows the fact-finder to resolve the “ultimate question”: whether the plaintiff established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant intentionally discriminated against her. United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983); see Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255 n. 8, 101 S.Ct. 1089 (“[T]he allocation of burdens and the creation of a presumption by the establishment of a prima facie case is intended progressively to sharpen the inquiry into the elusive factual question of intentional discrimination.”); Kent County Sheriffs Ass’n v. County of Kent, 826 F.2d 1485, 1493 (6th Cir.1987). While the discrete stages are meant to facilitate litigants and courts in reaching and resolving that ultimate question of discrimination, when misapplied, they tend to distract courts from the central issue. This is precisely what happened below.

1. The Prima Facie Case

First, the district court improperly rejected Cline’s prima facie case. In fact, the court’s analysis of the second prong improperly precluded Cline from being able to challenge the policy she claims to be discriminatory. This contravenes the very purpose for the prima facie stage set out in McDonnell Douglas and Burdine.

The prima facie requirement for making a Title VII claim “is not onerous,” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, and poses “a burden easily met.” Wrenn v. Gould, 808 F.2d 493, 500 (6th Cir.1987). The prima facie phase “merely serves to raise a rebuttable presumption of discrimination by ‘eliminating] the most common nondiscriminatory reasons for the [employer’s treatment of the plaintiff].’ ” Hollins v. Atlantic Co., 188 F.3d 652, 659 (6th Cir.1999)(quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253-54, 101 S.Ct. 1089). It is “only the first stage of proof in a Title VII case,” and its purpose is simply to “force [a] defendant to proceed with its case.” EEOC v. Avery Dennison Corp., 104 F.3d 858, 861-62 (6th Cir.1997). This division of intermediate evidentiary burdens is not meant to stymie plaintiffs, but simply serves to “bring the litigants and the court expeditiously and fairly to the ultimate question.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089.

The district court ignored these precepts when it held that Cline failed to make a prima facie showing. In addition to setting a burden far too high, it conflated the distinct stages of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry by using St. Paul’s “nondiscriminatory reason” as a predicate for finding Cline to have failed to make a prima facie case. The court found Cline “unqualified” under prong two of the prima facie case because she had not lived up to the promises she made to “exemplify the moral values taught by the Church.” J.A. at 332. Because her pregnancy due to premarital sex meant that “she no longer met all the qualifications of her position,” even strong evidence as to her satisfactory performance (i.e., her evaluations and teaching record) could not overcome these moral failings. J.A. at 333. This analysis improperly imported the later stages of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry into the initial prima facie stage. As discussed infra, St. Paul alleges that it did not renew Cline’s contract because she violated its premarital sex policy, which constituted part of the broader ministerial requirements of being a St. Paul teacher; conversely, Cline argues that this rebuttal is a pretext for discrimination. Rather than resolve this debate at the prima facie stage, McDonnell Douglas requires that the district court consider this dispute at the inquiry’s third stage, when its role is to decide the “ultimate question” of discrimination. In other words, when assessing *661whether a plaintiff has met her employer’s legitimate expectations at the prima facie stage of a termination case, a court must examine plaintiffs evidence independent of the nondiscriminatory reason “produced” by the defense as its reason for terminating plaintiff. The district court clearly failed to do this, improperly conflating the distinct stages of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry.

While St. Paul argued in its petition for rehearing that this requirement defies Circuit law, we believe that this approach not only comports with circuit caselaw, but is the only one that remains faithful to the purpose and structure of McDonnell Douglas. Aikens best illuminates this point. Aikens reminds us that once a defendant “responds to the plaintiffs proof by offering evidence of the reason for the plaintiffs rejection,” whether or not the plaintiff made out a prima facie case “is no longer relevant.” 460 U.S. at 714, 103 S.Ct. 1478; see Avery Dennison, 104 F.3d at 860-63. Rather, by producing evidence of its nondiscriminatory reason, a defendant has moved the inquiry to the ultimate factual question of whether its action against the plaintiff was discriminatory or not, and plaintiff thereafter enjoys the opportunity to rebut that reason and show discrimination. At this point, a district court cannot resolve the case by returning to the prima facie stage. See Aikens, 460 U.S. at 717, 103 S.Ct. 1478; Avery Dennison, 104 F.3d at 862-63. To do so would mistakenly “apply[ ] legal rules which were devised to govern ‘the basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof in deciding this ultimate question.” Aikens, 460 U.S. at 716, 103 S.Ct. 1478 (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 252, 101 S.Ct. 1089). This circuit has long recognized the importance of Aikens in structuring appellate and district court review of discrimination decisions. See, e.g., Avery Dennison Corp., 104 F.3d at 860; Brownlow v. Edgecomb Metals Co., 867 F.2d 960, 963 (6th Cir.1989); Simpson v. Midland-Ross Corp., 823 F.2d 937, 942 (6th Cir.1987); Fields v. Bolger, 723 F.2d 1216, 1219 (6th Cir.1984).

This case simply requires that the rule from Aikens be applied in the pretrial context. On a motion for summary judgment, a district court considers whether there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute at each stage of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry. The court first determines if a plaintiff has put forth sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find her to have met the prima facie requirements, including whether she has met the legitimate expectations of her employer. It performs the same function with respect to defendant’s production of evidence, and again for the plaintiffs response to that production. For the same reason that it is inappropriate under Aikens for the district court to revisit the prima facie stage using defendant’s evidence of its nondiscriminatory reason, it is equally inappropriate for the district court in the pre-trial stage to rely on the nondiscriminatory reason for termination to find plaintiffs prima facie case inadequate. This is true even if that “production” evidence happens to show that, in the employer’s view, the plaintiff was not meeting its legitimate expectations for the position at issue. Aikens instead mandates that at least with respect to the employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason, the prima facie case is no longer relevant — it has “dropped out” of the inquiry. The plaintiff thus enjoys the full opportunity to show that reason to be pretextual as part of the third stage of McDonnell Douglas. While a plaintiff may very well lose on summary judgment because she fails to proffer evidence on that “ultimate issue,” a court misapplies the structure of McDonnell Douglas by holding that she fails at the prima facie stage due to defendant’s nondiscriminatory reason.

We need look no further than some of the most important Supreme Court cases •in this area — scrutinizing not only what the Court said, but the trials which it reviewed — to see that this position is the *662only logical application of the McDonnell Douglas test. In Aikens, the district court noted Aikens’s general qualifications and positive employer reviews to conclude initially that Aikens had made out a prima facie case. See 460 U.S. at 713 n. 2 & 714 n. 4, 103 S.Ct. 1478. At trial, the defense argued that Aikens had not been promoted because he failed to accept several lateral transfers which would have broadened his Postal Service experience. See id. at 715, 103 S.Ct. 1478. Ultimately, the district court ruled against Aikens for having failed to make out his prima facie case, see id. at 716, 103 S.Ct. 1478, finding him unqualified due to the Postal Service’s explanation. See Aikens v. United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors, 642 F.2d 514, 518 (D.C.Cir.1980). While the D.C. Circuit found this reliance on the Postal Service’s evidence unconvincing as a matter of fact, see id. at 518, the Supreme Court made clear that both courts’ analy-ses were more deeply flawed because they used the defendant’s nondiscriminatory reason to assess whether the plaintiff met his prima facie case. Given defendant’s production, the court was “in a position to decide the ultimate factual issue in the case,” and should have done so. 460 U.S. at 715, 103 S.Ct. 1478. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court, adding: “Of course, the plaintiff must have an adequate ‘opportunity to demonstrate that the proffered reason was not the true reason for the employment decision.’ ” Id. at 716 n. 5, 103 S.Ct. 1478 (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089).

Except for the fact that Cline’s suit was decided at the pre-trial stage, the district court’s error in Aikens — relying on the nondiscriminatory reason produced by the Postal Board to rule against Aikens at the prima facie stage — is identical to the district court’s in this case. Indeed, just as St. Paul’s argument here, the defendant’s argument in Aikens was essentially that Aikens was not qualified, yet the Supreme Court reprimanded the district court for considering that argument as bearing on the prima facie proof. Defendant’s argument should instead have been treated as its production of a nondiscriminatory reason, enabling the fact-finder to proceed to the ultimate question of whether the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff. See id. at 715, 103 S.Ct. 1478. To assess this evidence at the prima facie stage is to misapply legal rules governing the allocation of burdens and order of proof to the determination of “the ultimate question.” Id. at 716, 103 S.Ct. 1478.

The Hicks decision confirms the logic of Aikens and applies it to the termination context. In that case, after a number of years of successful employment which included a promotion, St. Mary’s fired Hicks following a series of disciplinary actions and a demotion. See 509 U.S. at 504-05, 113 S.Ct. 2742. The district court nevertheless found him “qualified” for prima facie purposes by looking only at the evidence of Hicks’s employment record prior to the events that spurred his demotion and consequent termination. See Hicks v. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr., 756 F.Supp. 1244, 1249 (E.D.Mo.1991). In other words, the court did not consider Hicks’s alleged violation of various rules as part of the prima facie case (even though they arguably showed that he was not “qualified,” just as Cline’s violation of an essential rule allegedly deemed her “un qualified” in St. Paul’s eyes), but properly reserved its consideration of those alleged violations until the production stage. At that point, the Hicks Court emphasized, the prima facie inquiry “drops from the case” and the plaintiff once again has the “full and fair opportunity to demonstrate” that he has been the victim of intentional discrimination. 509 U.S. at 507, 113 S.Ct. 2742. Although the Court reversed the court of appeals on the question of whether Hicks met that ultimate burden, the structure of the Hicks trial reflects the logic of Aikens in the termination context: that whether or not a plaintiff makes a prima facie case must be ascertained by weighing the plaintiffs evidence that she *663was meeting her employer’s legitimate expectations, not by considering the nondiscriminatory reasons produced by the defendant as its reason for terminating her. Moreover, the Hicks trial shows that in the termination context, this determination will often involve assessing whether the plaintiff was meeting the employer’s expectations prior to the onset of the events that the employer cites as its reason for the termination, because weighing the litigants’ evidence on the veracity and propriety of that nondiscriminatory explanation comprises the “ultimate issue” of the case.7

*664Finally, Circuit caselaw has long recognized the logic of Aikens, utilizing the careful analysis we articulate in this case rather than conflating the distinct stages of McDonnell Douglas. See, e.g., Barnett v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 153 F.3d 338, 341-42 (6th Cir.1998) (treating failure to pass a basic test as the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiffs termination, rather than a factor making her unqualified); Danielson v. City of Lorain, 938 F.2d 681, 683 (6th Cir.1991) (treating “poor work performance” as the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, and not as a prima facie factor); Mills v. Ford Motor Co., 800 F.2d 635, 638-39 (6th Cir.1986) (considering unsatisfactory ratings as defendant’s “production,” and not at prima facie stage); McCrory v. Kraft Food Ingredients, 98 F.3d 1342, 1996 WL 571146 at *4 (6th Cir.1996) (unpublished) (looking only at a plaintiffs successful work record prior to the onset of poor work performance to find the prima facie stage satisfied, worried that otherwise, “most plaintiffs in discrimination cases will be barred from pursuing their claims before ever getting to the employer’s conduct”); Thompson v. Union Carbide Corp., 815 F.2d 706, 1987 WL 36807, at *3-*4 (6th Cir.1987) (unpublished) (affirming decision by district court to move to the “ultimate issue” once defendant offered evidence of reasons for termination, rather than scrutinizing the prima facie stage); Wilson v. Advance Mortgage Corp., 798 F.2d 1417, 1986 WL 17234 at *3 (6th Cir.1986) (unpublished)(castigating a district court’s prima facie requirement that a plaintiff rebut the “causes” for her demotion as invalid because it required her “to prove her entire case at the first stage” and because the company’s justifications “are of the type generally considered in the second stage of the Title VII inquiry”).

Unsurprisingly, precedent within the pregnancy discrimination context also stands against St. Paul. Consistent with the analysis above, the legal battles in cases like this have largely been waged at the rebuttal phase, not the prima facie phase. In Boyd, the teacher’s qualification for the job was simply not a contested issue even though she violated the school’s extramarital sex policy. See 88 F.3d at 413. In Ganzy, the district court held plainly that the plaintiff was “qualified for the position she held and was satisfactorily performing her job” even though she had engaged in premarital sex in violation of the school’s religious principles. Ganzy, 995 F.Supp. at 359. In sum, both logic and precedent dictate that the district court reserve for the rebuttal stage its assessment of the justification St. Paul “produced” to explain its decision not to renew Cline. Here, the court has improperly applied that justification to defeat Cline at the prima facie stage.8

*665Under Aikens, Hicks and this Court’s caselaw applying those decisions, Cline is thus correct when she argues that the district court wrongly assessed whether she ipade a sufficient prima facie showing. The district court compounded this error when it stated that a plaintiff in Cline’s position could show she was qualified if she “were able to demonstrate some basis for a finding that the job qualifications” were discriminatory. J.A. at 385. In other words, the court would require plaintiffs to show in their prima facie case that the reason for which their employer terminated them is itself discriminatory. This is errant for two related reasons. First, once a defendant has articulated and proffered evidence that it terminated a plaintiff because she failed to meet certain expectations, it has by definition already taken the inquiry beyond the prima facie stage with respect to that reason. While the plaintiff must still show that she met her employer’s legitimate expectations to get beyond the prima facie stage, her attempts to rebut the defendant’s reason comprise part of the ultimate factual question — the third stage of McDonnell Douglas. Of course, if she fails to rebut the defendant’s nondiscriminatory reason, she loses the suit on that ground — but it is technically incorrect to rule that she failed at the prima facie stage. Second, forcing plaintiffs to make such a proof at the prima facie stage defies the very purpose of the production stage and the overall sequence of McDonnell Douglas. The burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas exists, in part, to resolve “the disparity in access to information between employee and employer regarding the employer’s true motives for making the challenged employment decision.” Walker v. Mortham, 158 F.3d 1177, 1192 (11th Cir.1998). Requiring a rebuttal by the defendant “frame[s] the factual issue with sufficient clarity so that the plaintiff will have a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate pretext.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255-56, 101 S.Ct. 1089. Without a clearly articulated reason,

the plaintiff does not know whether the employment decision was made upon his work record or upon an illegitimate racial preference. His offer of proof is somewhat thwarted by this confusion. A plaintiff cannot disprove as a cause for his failure to be rehired a source of dissatisfaction of which he is unaware.

Rowe v. Cleveland Pneumatic Co., 690 F.2d 88, 97 (6th Cir.1982) (emphasis added). Thus, a court distorts the McDonnell Douglas framework by requiring a plaintiff to show that the reason for which she was terminated is discriminatory before even requiring the defendant to articulate that *666reason. This is precisely what the district court did in this case.

Without considering the “ultimate question” of whether St. Paul’s premarital sex policy was applied in a discriminatory way, or whether it was the true reason the school terminated Cline, there is little doubt that Cline made a prima facie case showing that she was meeting St. Paul’s legitimate expectations. “In order to show that [s]he was qualified, [the plaintiff] must prove that [s]he was performing ... ‘at a level which met [her] employer’s legitimate expectations.’” McDonald, 898 F.2d at 1160 (citation omitted). The evidence Cline presented of her two-year record of success, and in particular her positive April 1996 evaluation, is more than enough to meet this standard. The fact that the school allowed her to keep teaching for the remainder of the year further bolsters this showing. She thus successfully made out a prima facie case.

2. Production and Rebuttal

Because Cline has successfully made a prima facie showing, we next must consider the rebuttal phase: did St. Paul satisfy its burden of producing a nondiscriminatory reason for the non-renewal, and can Cline meet her burden of establishing that this reason was a mere pretext? The district court concluded that St. Paul satisfied its burden of articulating a nondiscriminatory reason. It also concluded that Cline did not demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether that reason was pretextual. While we agree with the first conclusion, we disagree with the second.

(a) Burden of Production

First, we agree with the district court that St. Paul successfully articulated a nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. The burden on St. Paul “is to rebut the presumption of discrimination by producing evidence that the plaintiff was rejected ... for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089. This is a burden of production; although “[t]he defendant need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons,” it must raise “a genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against the plaintiff.” Id. To do this, “the defendant must clearly set forth ... the reasons for the plaintiffs rejection,” and that explanation “must be legally sufficient to justify a judgment for the defendant.” Id. at 255, 101 S.Ct. 1089.

St. Paul satisfied this burden by asserting that it did not renew Cline’s contract because she violated her clear duties as a teacher by engaging in premarital sex. This conclusion squares with Boyd and Ganzy, where schools articulated similar reasons as their motivation for termination. See Boyd, 88 F.3d at 414 (agreeing with the district court’s conclusion that the defendant “articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason by stating that it fired plaintiff Boyd not because she was pregnant, but for engaging in sex outside of marriage”); Ganzy, 995 F.Supp. at 359 (stating that the defendant-school “discharge[d]” its burden of production when it “stated that Ganzy violated its religious teachings by engaging in premarital sexual activity”). As in those cases, St. Paul has “simply explained] what [it] has done [and] produce[d] evidence of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089.

(b) Showing of Pretext.

The presumption of discrimination having been rebutted, “the factual inquiry proceeds to a new level of specificity,” with Cline shouldering the burden of “demons-trat[ing] that the proffered reason was not the true reason for the employment decision.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255-56, 101 S.Ct. 1089. This burden “merges with the ultimate burden of persuading the court that she has been the victim of intentional discrimination.” Id. Once again, therefore, Cline must answer the ultimate question: did St. Paul discriminate against her “be*667cause she was pregnant,” or “for engaging in sex outside of marriage” in violation of the school’s moral code? Boyd, 88 F.3d at 414; see also Ganzy, 995 F.Supp. at 349; Bolter, 483 F.Supp. at 270.

Because Cline enjoys a “full and fair opportunity” to make this showing, Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089, she can pursue several avenues of discovery. First, she can show intentional discrimination directly by showing “that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer” than the reason the employer proffered. Id. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089. Second, she can indirectly show “pretext” by showing “that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” Id. In the pregnancy discrimination context in particular, Cline also may show that St. Paul enforced its premarital sex policy in a discriminatory manner— against only pregnant women, or against only women. See Boyd, 88 F.3d at 414. This is because a school violates Title VII if, due purely to the fact that “[w]omen can become pregnant [and][m]en cannot,” Ganzy, 995 F.Supp. at 344, it punishes only women for sexual relations because those relations are revealed through pregnancy. See also Vigars v. Valley Christian Ctr., 805 F.Supp. 802, 808 (N.D.Cal.1992) (stating that an anti-premarital sex policy violates Title VII if it is enforced solely through observing pregnancy, because such a policy subjects “only women” to termination “for something that men would not be, and that is sex discrimination, regardless of the justification put forth for the disparity”). In other words, a school can not use the mere observation or knowledge of pregnancy as its sole method of detecting violations of its premarital sex policy.

In assessing Cline’s attempts to show pretext, the district court far too hastily sided with St. Paul. Factually, this case is a tightly-waged battle. Cline presented a variety of concrete evidence casting into doubt the “reason” St. Paul proffered — that it decided not to renew her contract because she had violated its blanket policy against premarital sex — and raising an issue of fact as to whether the treatment was due to her pregnancy. Most importantly, she presented evidence that the school continued to view her as sufficiently qualified to teach: the complimentary evaluation (mentioning both her “personal” and “professional” life), its consideration of other “options” for some time before opting to terminate her, and Father Willman’s suggestion in the record that “things might have worked out differently” had Cline notified him of her pregnancy sooner. She also produced some evidence showing that the school may have focused more on the fact of her pregnancy than her sexual activity. For instance, she testified to conversations and produced statements in which school officials explicitly discussed her “pregnancy” rather than her sexual actions. Finally, Cline adduced evidence that the policy was not applied equally among men and women. St. Paul officials acknowledged in their depositions that Cline’s pregnancy alone had signaled them that she engaged in premarital sex, and that the school does not otherwise inquire as to whether male teachers engage in premarital sex. At oral argument, counsel for St. Paul conceded that it was only Cline’s pregnancy that made it evident that she had engaged in premarital sex. These admissions raise an issue of material fact as to whether St. Paul enforces its policy solely by observing the pregnancy of its female teachers, which would constitute a form of pregnancy discrimination.

No doubt, St. Paul may have sharp retorts to many of Cline’s factual claims. Indeed, many of its responses could well convince a trier of fact of its case. But at this stage in the trial, the district court’s and our role is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter,” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, but “to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. To do so, the court must look at the *668evidence and make all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Cline. See National Enterprises, Inc., 114 F.3d at 563. If, in that light, “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,” a trial— and not summary judgment — is warranted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Observed in a light most favorable to her, Cline has clearly offered evidence sufficient to leap this hurdle.

The district court’s contrary conclusion reflects an errant approach to the summary judgment stage. At each step of its analysis, rather than drawing inferences in Cline’s favor, the court credited St. Paul’s account over Cline’s. For instance, the court rebuts Cline’s statements that conversations with Fr. Wilhnan centered' on her pregnancy by finding that Fr. Willman “has explained that plaintiffs pregnancy was significant only because it accurately demonstrated her decision to have premarital sex.” J.A. at 338. This disagreement is a crucial dispute over a key material fact; rather than reserving it for the trier of fact to resolve, the court has favored the school’s explanation. St. Paul asks us to do the same throughout its brief.9 This and other examples of crediting St. Paul’s factual contentions amid a genuine factual dispute fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s warning that the district court must not “weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter” at the summary judgment stage. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

Finally, St. Paul’s frequent reliance on Boyd, which concluded that Boyd’s claim did not survive the rebuttal stage, does not help its argument here; indeed, that case bolsters Cline’s arguments. In Boyd, this Court did not review an order of summary judgment, but affirmed a bench trial decision. Its , affirmance on the merits therefore provides no support for St. Paul’s arguments that Cline is not entitled to a trial at all. The fact that the parties in this case have waged vigorous factual disputes over the central factors the Boyd Court considered in its holding — namely, whether the school applied its standards in a discriminatory manner, and whether the school’s policy was based on pregnancy or premarital sex — underscores that in this case there is indeed a genuine dispute over the most important material facts. This further highlights the district court’s error in granting summary judgment.

D.

We also reverse the district court’s decision with respect to the discrimination claim under Ohio law. Ohio courts utilize the same McDonnell Douglas analysis described supra when analyzing discrimination claims brought under the Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4112. See Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Ingram, 69 Ohio St.3d 89, 630 N.E.2d 669, 672 (1994) (holding that federal caselaw interpreting and applying Title VII is generally applicable to cases involving Chapter 4112); Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Comm. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n, 66 Ohio St.2d 192, 421 N.E.2d 128, 131-32 (1981) (applying McDonnell Douglas). This is no different for discrimination claims brought against sectarian schools. See Basinger v. Pilarczyk, 125 Ohio App.3d 74, 707 N.E.2d 1149, 1150-51 (1997) (stating that the McDonnell Douglas analysis applies when teacher sues a sectarian school). For the same reasons that Cline is entitled to pursue her federal discrimination claim before a trier of fact, she is equally entitled to press on with her claim under Ohio’s Civil Rights Act.

E.

We agree with the district court that Cline’s contract claims are meritless. The contract itself was for a one-year term, to end on June 30, 1996, with no express or implied right to renewal. Its terms were *669fulfilled. Her promissory estoppel claim also lacks merit. To win under a theory of promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must show “detrimental reliance of the promisee upon the false representations of the promis-sor.” Karnes v. Doctors Hosp., 51 Ohio St.3d 139, 142, 555 N.E.2d 280 (1990). Although Cline generally alleged that she was unsuccessful in finding work immediately after she was informed of her non-renewal, she presented no evidence showing that she detrimentally relied on the school’s implication that her contract would be renewed, or that she was injured by that reliance. Thus, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for St. Paul on her promissory estoppel claim.

IV.

When faced with a similar fact situation in Ganzy, Judge Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York concluded:

Plaintiffs evidence ... might lead a jury to find that the religious reason — premarital sex — for the termination is a pretext. Contrariwise, a jury might well find that [the school’s decision was made] because [of] the school’s religious beliefs.... Or it might simply not believe the Plaintiffs version of the incident. ... Under such circumstances, a decision by a cross-section of the community in a jury trial is appropriate.

995 F.Supp. at 360-61. The situation in this case is no different. Cline has introduced sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case, and sufficient evidence to call into question St. Paul’s proffered reason for her non-renewal. The law entitles her to make her case before a trier of fact. For these reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s summary judgment on the discrimination claims and AFFIRM on the contract claims.

*724Chief Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA or Act) entitles eligible employees to take up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave annually for any of several reasons, including the onset of a “serious health condition” in an employee’s spouse, child, or parent. 107 Stat. 9, 29 U. S. C. §2612(a) (1)(C). The Act creates a private right of action to seek both equitable relief and money damages “against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction,” § 2617(a)(2), should that em*725ployer “interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of” FMLA rights, § 2615(a)(1)- We hold that employees of the State of Nevada may recover money damages in the event of the State’s failure to comply with the family-care provision of the Act.

Petitioners include the Nevada Department of Human Resources (Department) and two of its officers. Respondent William Hibbs (hereinafter respondent) worked for the Department’s Welfare Division. In April and May 1997, he sought leave under the FMLA to care for his ailing wife, who was recovering from a car accident and neck surgery. The Department granted his request for the full 12 weeks of FMLA leave and authorized him to use the leave intermittently as needed between May and December 1997. Respondent did so until August 5,1997, after which he did not return to work. In October 1997, the Department informed respondent that he had exhausted his FMLA leave, that no further leave would be granted, and that he must report to work by November 12,1997. Respondent failed to do so and was terminated.

Respondent sued petitioners in the United States District Court seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief for, inter alia, violations of 29 U. S. C. § 2612(a)(1)(C). The District Court awarded petitioners summary judgment on the grounds that the FMLA claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that respondent’s Fourteenth Amendment rights had not been violated. Respondent appealed, and the United States intervened under 28 U. S. C. § 2403 to defend the validity of the FMLA’s application to the States. The Ninth Circuit reversed. 273 F. 3d 844 (2001).

We granted certiorari, 536 U. S. 938 (2002), to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether an individual may sue a State for money damages in federal court for violation of § 2612(a)(1)(C). Compare Kazmier v. *726Widmann, 225 F. 3d 519, 526, 529 (CA5 2000), with 273 F. 3d 844 (case below).

For over a century now, we have made clear that the Constitution does not provide for federal jurisdiction over suits against nonconsenting States. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356, 363 (2001); Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 72-73 (2000); College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 669-670 (1999); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 54 (1996); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 15 (1890).

Congress may, however, abrogate such immunity in federal court if it makes its intention to abrogate unmistakably clear in the language of the statute and acts pursuant to a valid exercise of its power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Garrett, supra, at 363; Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 786 (1991) (citing Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U. S. 223, 228 (1989)). The clarity of Congress’ intent here is not fairly debatable. The Act enables employees to seek damages “against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction,” 29 U. S. C. § 2617(a)(2), and Congress has defined “public agency” to include both “the government of a State or political subdivision thereof” and “any agency of . a State, or a political subdivision of a State,” §§203(x), 2611(4)(A)(iii). We held in Kimel that, by using identical language in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq., Congress satisfied the clear statement rule of Dellmuth. 528 U. S., at 73-78. This case turns, then, on whether Congress acted within its constitutional authority when it sought to abrogate the States’ immunity for purposes of the FMLA’s family-leave provision.

In enacting the FMLA, Congress relied on two of the powers vested in it by the Constitution: its Article I commerce power and its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment *727to enforce that Amendment’s guarantees.1 Congress may not abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity pursuant to its Article I power over commerce. Seminole Tribe, supra. Congress may, however, abrogate States’ sovereign immunity through a valid exercise of its § 5 power, for “the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 456 (1976) (citation omitted). See also Garrett, supra, at 364; Kimel, supra, at 80.

Two provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment are relevant here: Section 5 grants Congress the power “to enforce” the substantive guarantees of § 1 — among them, equal protection of the laws — by enacting “appropriate legislation.” Congress may, in the exercise of its § 5 power, do more than simply proscribe conduct that we have held unconstitutional. “ ‘Congress’ power “to enforce” the Amendment includes the authority both to remedy and to deter violation of rights guaranteed thereunder by prohibiting a somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself forbidden by the Amendment’s text.’ ” Garrett, supra, at 365 (quoting Kimel, supra, at 81); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 536 (1997); Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641, 658 (1966). In other words, Congress may enact so-called prophylactic *728legislation that proscribes facially constitutional conduct, in order to prevent and deter unconstitutional conduct.

City of Boerne also confirmed, however, that it falls to this Court, not Congress, to define the substance of constitutional guarantees. 521 U. S., at 519-524. “The ultimate interpretation and determination of the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive meaning remains the province of the Judicial Branch.” Kimel, 528 U. S., at 81. Section 5 legislation reaching beyond the scope of § l’s actual guarantees must be an appropriate remedy for identified constitutional violations, not “an attempt to substantively redefine the States’ legal obligations.” Id., at 88. We distinguish appropriate prophylactic legislation from “substantive redefinition of the Fourteenth Amendment right at issue,” id., at 81, by applying the test set forth in City of Boerne: Valid § 5 legislation must exhibit “congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end,” 521 U. S., at 520.

The FMLA aims to protect the right to be free from gender-based discrimination in the workplace.2 We have held that statutory classifications that distinguish between males and females are subject to heightened scrutiny. See, e. g., Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 197-199 (1976). For a gender-based classification to withstand such scrutiny, it must “serv[e] important governmental objectives,” and “the discriminatory means employed [must be] substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.” United *729States v. Virginia, 518 U. S. 515, 533 (1996) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The State’s justification for such a classification “must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.” Ibid. We now inquire whether Congress had evidence of a pattern of constitutional violations on the part of the States in this area.

The history of the many state laws limiting women’s employment opportunities is chronicled in — and, until relatively recently, was sanctioned by — this Court’s own opinions. For example, in Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130 (1873) (Illinois), and Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U. S. 464, 466 (1948) (Michigan), the Court upheld state laws prohibiting women from practicing law and tending bar, respectively. State laws frequently subjected women to distinctive restrictions, terms, conditions, and benefits for those jobs they could take. In Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412, 419, n. 1 (1908), for example, this Court approved a state law limiting the hours that women could work for wages, and observed that 19 States had such laws at the time. Such laws were based on the related beliefs that (1) a woman is, and should remain, “the center of home and family life,” Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U. S. 57, 62 (1961), and (2) “a proper discharge of [a woman’s] maternal functions — having in view not merely her own health, but the well-being of the race — justifies] legislation to protect her from the greed as well as the passion of man,” Muller, supra, at 422. Until our decision in Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971), “it remained the prevailing doctrine that government, both federal and state, could withhold from women opportunities accorded men so long as any ‘basis in reason’ ” — such as the above beliefs — “could be conceived for the discrimination.” Virginia, supra, at 531 (quoting Goesaert, supra, at 467).

Congress responded to this history of discrimination by abrogating States’ sovereign immunity in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 255, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a), *730and we sustained this abrogation in Fitzpatrick. But state gender discrimination did not cease. “[I]t can hardly be doubted that . . . women still face pervasive, although at times more subtle, discrimination ... in the job market.” Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 686 (1973). According to evidence that was before Congress when it enacted the FMLA, States continue to rely on invalid gender stereotypes in the employment context, specifically in the administration of leave benefits. Reliance on such stereotypes cannot justify the States’ gender discrimination in this area. Virginia, supra, at 533. The long and extensive history of sex discrimination prompted us to hold that measures that differentiate on the basis of gender warrant heightened scrutiny; here, as in Fitzpatrick, the persistence of such unconstitutional discrimination by the States justifies Congress’ passage of prophylactic § 5 legislation.

As the FMLA’s legislative record reflects, a 1990 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) survey stated that 37 percent of surveyed private-sector employees were covered by maternity leave policies, while only 18 percent were covered by paternity leave policies. S. Rep. No. 103-3, pp. 14-15 (1993). The corresponding numbers from a similar BLS survey the previous year were 33 percent and 16 percent, respectively. Ibid. While these data show an increase in the percentage of employees eligible for such leave, they also show a widening of the gender gap during the same period. Thus, stereotype-based beliefs about the allocation of family duties remained firmly rooted, and employers’ reliance on them in establishing discriminatory leave policies remained widespread.3

*731Congress also heard testimony that “[pjarental leave for fathers ... is rare. Even... [w]here child-care leave policies do exist, men, both in the 'public and private sectors, receive notoriously discriminatory treatment in their requests for such leave.” Joint Hearing 147 (Washington Council of Lawyers) (emphasis added). Many States offered women extended “maternity” leave that far exceeded the typical 4-to 8-week period of physical disability due to pregnancy and childbirth,4 but very few States granted men a parallel benefit: Fifteen States provided women up to one year of extended maternity leave, while only four provided men with the same. M. Lord & M. King, The State Reference Guide to Work-Family Programs for State Employees 80 (1991). This and other differential leave policies were not attributable to any differential physical needs of men and women, but rather to the pervasive sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is women’s work.5

*732Finally, Congress had evidence that, even where state laws and policies were not facially discriminatory, they were applied in discriminatory ways. It was aware of the “serious problems with the discretionary nature of family leave,” because when “the authority to grant leave and to arrange the length of that leave rests with individual supervisors,” it leaves “employees open to discretionary and possibly unequal treatment.” H. R. Rep. No. 103-8, pt. 2, pp. 10-11 (1993). Testimony supported that conclusion, explaining that “[t]he lack of uniform parental and medical leave policies in the work place has created an environment where [sex] discrimination is rampant.” 1987 Senate Labor Hearings, pt. 2, at 170 (testimony of Peggy Montes, Mayor’s Commission on Women’s Affairs, City of Chicago).

In spite of all of the above evidence, Justice Kennedy argues in dissent that Congress’ passage of the FMLA was unnecessary because “the States appear to have been ahead of Congress in providing gender-neutral family leave benefits,” post, at 750, and points to Nevada’s leave policies in particular, post, at 755. However, it was only “[s]ince Federal family leave legislation was first introduced” that the States had even “begun to consider similar family leave initiatives.” S. Rep. No. 103-3, at 20; see also S. Rep. No. 102-*73368, p. 77 (1991) (minority views of Sen. Durenberger) (“[S]o few states have elected to enact similar legislation at the state level”).

Furthermore, the dissent’s statement that some States “had adopted some form of family-care leave” before the FMLA’s enactment, post, at 750, glosses over important shortcomings of some state policies. First, seven States had childcare leave provisions that applied to women only. Indeed, Massachusetts required that notice of its leave provisions be posted only in “establishment^] in which females are employed.”6 These laws reinforced' the very stereotypes that Congress sought to remedy through the FMLA. Second, 12 States provided their employees no family leave, beyond an initial childbirth or adoption, to care for a seriously ill child or family member.7 Third, many States pro*734vided no statutorily guaranteed right to family leave, offering instead only voluntary or discretionary leave programs. Three States left the amount of leave time primarily in employers’ hands.8 Congress could reasonably conclude that such discretionary family-leave programs would do little to combat the stereotypes about the roles of male and female employees that Congress sought to eliminate. Finally, four States provided leave only through administrative regulations or personnel policies, which Congress could reasonably conclude offered significantly less firm protection than a federal law.9 Against the above backdrop of limited state leave policies, no matter how generous petitioners’ own may have been, see post, at 755 (dissent), Congress was justified in enacting the FMLA as remedial legislation.10

*735In sum, the States’ record of unconstitutional participation in, and fostering of, gender-based discrimination in the administration of leave benefits is weighty enough to justify the enactment of prophylactic § 5 legislation.11

We reached the opposite conclusion in Garrett and Kimel. In those cases, the §5 legislation under review responded to a purported tendency of state officials to make age- or disability-based distinctions. Under our equal protection case law, discrimination on the basis of such characteristics is not judged under a heightened review standard, and passes muster if there is “a rational basis for doing so at a class-based level, even if it ‘is probably not true’ that those reasons are valid in the majority of cases.” Kimel, 528 U. S., at 86 (quoting Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 473 (1991)). See also Garrett, 581 U. S., at 367 (“States are not required by the Fourteenth Amendment to make special accommodations for the disabled, so long as their actions toward such individuals are rational”). Thus, in order to impugn the constitutionality of state discrimination against the disabled or the elderly, Congress must identify, not just the existence of age- or disability-based state decisions, but a “widespread pattern” of irrational reliance on such criteria. Kimel, supra, at 90. We found no such showing with respect to the ADE A and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Kimel, supra, at 89; Garrett, supra, at 368.

*736Here, however, Congress directed its attention to state gender discrimination, which triggers a heightened level of scrutiny. See, e. g., Craig, 429 U. S., at 197-199. Because the standard for demonstrating the constitutionality of a gender-based classification is more difficult to meet than our rational-basis test — it must “serv[e] important governmental objectives” and be “substantially related to the achievement of those objectives,” Virginia, 518 U. S., at 538 — it was easier for Congress to show a pattern of state constitutional violations. Congress was similarly successful in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 308-313 (1966), where we upheld the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Because racial classifications are presumptively invalid, most of the States’ acts of race discrimination violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The impact of the discrimination targeted by the FMLA is significant. Congress determined:

“Historically, denial or curtailment of women’s employment opportunities has been traceable directly to the pervasive presumption that women are mothers first, and workers second. This prevailing ideology about women’s roles has in turn justified discrimination against women when they are mothers or mothers-to-be.” Joint Hearing 100.

Stereotypes about women’s domestic roles are reinforced by parallel stereotypes presuming a lack of domestic responsibilities for men. Because employers continued to regard the family as the woman’s domain, they often denied men similar accommodations or discouraged them from taking leave. These mutually reinforcing stereotypes created a self-fulfilling cycle of discrimination that forced women to continue to assume the role of primary family caregiver, and fostered employers’ stereotypical views about women’s commitment to work and their value as employees. Those perceptions, in turn, Congress reasoned, lead to subtle discrimination that may be difficult to detect on a case-by-case basis.

*737We believe that Congress’ chosen remedy, the family-care leave provision of the FMLA, is “congruent and proportional to the targeted violation,” Garrett, supra, at 374. Congress had already tried unsuccessfully to address this problem through Title VII and the amendment of Title VII by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(k). Here, as in Katzenbach, supra, Congress again confronted a “difficult and intractable proble[m],” Kimel, supra, at 88, where previous legislative attempts had failed. See Katzenbach, supra, at 313 (upholding the Voting Rights Act). Such problems may justify added prophylactic measures in response. Kimel, supra, at 88.

By creating an across-the-board, routine employment benefit for all eligible employees, Congress sought to ensure that family-care leave would no longer be stigmatized as an inordinate drain on the workplace caused by female employees, and that employers could not evade leave obligations simply by hiring men. By setting a minimum standard of family leave for all eligible employees, irrespective of gender, the FMLA attacks the formerly state-sanctioned stereotype that only women are responsible for family caregiving, thereby reducing employers’ incentives to engage in discrimination by basing hiring and promotion decisions on stereotypes.

The dissent characterizes the FMLA as a “substantive entitlement program” rather than a remedial statute because it establishes a floor of 12 weeks’ leave. Post, at 754. In the dissent’s view, in the face of evidence of gender-based discrimination by the States in the provision of leave benefits, Congress could do no more in exercising its § 5 power than simply proscribe such discrimination. But this position cannot be squared with our recognition that Congress “is not confined to the enactment of legislation that merely parrots the precise wording of the Fourteenth Amendment,” but may prohibit “a somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself forbidden by the Amendment’s text.” Kimel, supra, at 81. For example, this Court has *738upheld certain prophylactic provisions of the Voting Rights Act as valid exercises of Congress’ § 5 power, including the literacy test ban and preclearance requirements for changes in States’ voting procedures. See, e. g., Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641 (1966); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112 (1970); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra.

Indeed, in light of the evidence before Congress, a statute mirroring Title VII, that simply mandated gender equality in the administration of leave benefits, would not have achieved Congress’ remedial object. Such a law would allow States to provide for no family leave at all. Where “[t]wo-thirds of the nonprofessional caregivers for older, chronically ill, or disabled persons are working women,” H. R. Rep. No. 103-8, pt. 1, at 24; S. Rep. No. 103-3, at 7, and state practices continue to reinforce the stereotype of women as caregivers, such a policy would exclude far more women than men from the workplace.

Unlike the statutes at issue in City of Boerne, Kimel, and Garrett, which applied broadly to every aspect of state employers’ operations, the FMLA is narrowly targeted at the faultline between work and family — precisely where sex-based overgeneralization has been and remains strongest— and affects only one aspect of the employment relationship. Compare Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U. S. 81, 91 (2002) (discussing the “important limitations of the [FMLA’s] remedial scheme”), with City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 532 (the “[s]weeping coverage” of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993); Kimel, 528 U. S., at 91 (“the indiscriminate scope of the [ADEA’s] substantive requirements”); and Garrett, 531 U. S., at 361 (the ADA prohibits disability discrimination “in regard to [any] terms, conditions, and privileges of employment” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We also find significant the many other limitations that Congress placed on the scope of this measure. See Florida Prepaid, 527 U. S., at 647 (“[W]here ‘a congressional enact*739ment pervasively prohibits constitutional state action in an effort to remedy or to prevent unconstitutional state action, limitations of this kind tend to ensure Congress’ means are proportionate to ends legitimate under §5’” (quoting City of Boerne, supra, at 532-533)). The FMLA requires only unpaid leave, 29 U. S. C. § 2612(a)(1), and applies only to employees who have worked for the employer for at least one year and provided 1,250 hours of service within the last 12 months, § 2611(2)(A). Employees in high-ranking or sensitive positions are simply ineligible for FMLA leave; of particular importance to the States, the FMLA expressly excludes from coverage state elected officials, their staffs, and appointed policymakers. §§2611(2)(B)(i) and (3), 203(e) (2)(C). Employees must give advance notice of foreseeable leave, § 2612(e), and employers may require certification by a health care provider of the need for leave, §2613. In choosing 12 weeks as the appropriate leave floor, Congress chose “a middle ground, a period long enough to serve ‘the needs of families’ but not so long that it would upset ‘the legitimate interests of employers.’” Ragsdale, supra, at 94 (quoting 29 U. S. C. § 2601(b)).12 Moreover, the cause *740of action under the FMLA is a restricted one: The damages recoverable are strictly defined and measured by actual monetary losses, §§ 2617(a)(l)(A)(i) — (iii), and the accrual period for backpay is limited by the Act’s 2-.year statute of limitations (extended to three years only for willful violations), §§ 2617(c)(1) and (2).

For the above reasons, we conclude that § 2612(a)(1)(C) is congruent and proportional to its remedial object, and can “be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.” City of Boerne, supra, at 532.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore

Affirmed.

Justice Souter,

with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, concurring.

Even on this Court’s view of the scope of congressional power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356 (2001); Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62 (2000); Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U. S. 627 (1999), the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is undoubtedly valid legislation, and application of the Act to the States is constitutional; the same conclusions follow a fortiori from my own understanding of § 5, see Garrett, supra, at 376 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kimel, supra, at 92 (Stevens, J., dissenting); Florida Prepaid, supra, at 648 (Stevens, J., dissenting); see also Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641, 650-651 (1966). I join the Court’s opinion here without conceding the dissenting positions just cited or the dissenting views expressed in Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 100 (1996) (Souter, J., dissenting).

Justice Stevens,

concurring in the judgment.

Because I have never been convinced that an Act of Congress can amend the Constitution and because I am uncer*741tain whether the congressional enactment before us was truly “ ‘needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment,’” I write separately to explain why I join the Court’s judgment. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 458 (1976) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641, 651 (1966)).

The plain language of the Eleventh Amendment poses no barrier to the adjudication of this case because respondents are citizens of Nevada. The sovereign immunity defense asserted by Nevada is based on what I regard as the second Eleventh Amendment, which has its source in judge-made common law, rather than constitutional text. Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U. S. 1, 23 (1989) (Stevens, J., concurring). As long as it clearly expresses its intent, Congress may abrogate that common-law defense pursuant to its power to regulate commerce “among the several States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8. The family-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is unquestionably a valid exercise of a power that is “broad enough to support federal legislation regulating the terms and conditions of state employment.” Fitzpatrick, 427 U. S., at 458 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).* Accordingly, Nevada’s sovereign immunity defense is without merit.

Justice Scalia,

dissenting.

I join Justice Kennedy’s dissent, and add one further observation: The constitutional violation that is a prerequisite to “prophylactic” congressional action to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment is a violation by the State against which the enforcement action is taken. There is no guilt by association, enabling the sovereignty of one State to be abridged under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment because of violations by another State, or by most other States, or even *742by 49 other States. We explained as much long ago in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 14 (1883), which invalidated a portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, purportedly based on § 5, in part for the following reason:

“It applies equally to cases arising in states which have the justest laws respecting the personal rights of citizens, and whose authorities are ever ready to enforce such laws as to those which arise in states that may have violated the prohibition of the amendment.”

Congress has sometimes displayed awareness of this self-evident limitation. That is presumably why the most sweeping provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — which we upheld in City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156 (1980), as a valid exercise of congressional power under §2 of the Fifteenth Amendment* — were restricted to States “with a demonstrable history of intentional racial discrimination in voting,” id., at 177.

Today’s opinion for the Court does not even attempt to demonstrate that each one of the 50 States covered by 29 U. S. C. § 2612(a)(1)(C) was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It treats “the States” as some sort of collective entity which is guilty or innocent as a body. “[T]he States’ record of unconstitutional participation in, and fostering of, gender-based discrimination,” it concludes, “is weighty enough to justify the enactment of prophylactic § 5 legislation.” Ante, at 735. This will not do. Prophylaxis in the sense of extending the remedy beyond the violation is one thing; prophylaxis in the sense of extending the remedy beyond the violator is something else. See City of Rome, supra, at 177 (“Congress could rationally have concluded *743that, because electoral changes by jurisdictions with a demonstrable history of intentional racial discrimination in voting create the risk of purposeful discrimination, it was proper to prohibit changes that have a discriminatory impact” (emphasis added)).

When a litigant claims that legislation has denied him individual rights secured by the Constitution, the court ordinarily asks first whether the legislation is constitutional as applied to him. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 613 (1973). When, on the other hand, a federal statute is challenged as going beyond Congress’s enumerated powers, under our precedents the court first asks whether the statute is unconstitutional on its face. Ante, at 727-728; Post, at 744 (Kennedy, J., dissenting); see United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598 (2000); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507 (1997); United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995). If the statute survives this challenge, however, it stands to reason that the court may, if asked, proceed to analyze whether the statute (constitutional on its face) can be validly applied to the litigant. In the context of § 5 prophylactic legislation applied against a State, this would entail examining whether the State has itself engaged in discrimination sufficient to support the exercise of Congress’s prophylactic power.

It seems, therefore, that for purposes of defeating petitioners’ challenge, it would have been enough for respondents to demonstrate that § 2612(a)(1)(C) was facially valid — i. e., that it could constitutionally be applied to some jurisdictions. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987). (Even that demonstration, for the reasons set forth by Justice Kennedy, has not been made.) But when it comes to an as-applied challenge, I think Nevada will be entitled to assert that the mere facts that (1) it is a State, and (2) some States are bad actors, is not enough; it can demand that it be shown to have been acting in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

*744Justice Kennedy,

with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 makes explicit the congressional intent to invoke §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate state sovereign immunity and allow suits for money damages in federal courts. Ante, at 726-727, and n. 1. The specific question is whether Congress may impose on the States this entitlement program of its own design, with mandated mínimums for leave time, and then enforce it by permitting private suits for money damages against the States. This in turn must be answered by asking whether subjecting States and their treasuries to monetary liability at the insistence of private litigants is a congruent and proportional response to a demonstrated pattern of unconstitutional conduct by the States. See ante, at 728; Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356, 365 (2001); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 520 (1997). If we apply the teaching of these and related cases, the family leave provision of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 2612(a)(1)(C), in my respectful view, is invalid to the extent it allows for private suits against the unconsenting States.

Congress does not have authority to define the substantive content of the Equal Protection Clause; it may only shape the remedies warranted by the violations of that guarantee. City of Boerne, supra, at 519-520. This requirement has special force in the context of the Eleventh Amendment, which protects a State’s fiscal integrity from federal intrusion by vesting the States with immunity from private actions for damages pursuant to federal laws. The Commerce Clause likely would permit the National Government to enact an entitlement program such as this one; but when Congress couples the entitlement with the authorization to sue the States for monetary damages, it blurs the line of accountability the State has to its own citizens. These basic concerns underlie cases such as Garrett and Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62 (2000), and should counsel far *745more caution than the Court shows in holding § 2612(a)(1)(C) is somehow a congruent and proportional remedy to an identified pattern of discrimination.

The Court is unable to show that States have engaged in a pattern of unlawful conduct which warrants the remedy of opening state treasuries to private suits. The inability to adduce evidence of alleged discrimination, coupled with the inescapable fact that the federal scheme is not a remedy but a benefit program, demonstrates the lack of the requisite link between any problem Congress has identified and the program it mandated.

In examining whether Congress was addressing a demonstrated “pattern of unconstitutional employment discrimination by the States,” the Court gives superficial treatment to the requirement that we “identify with some precision the scope of the constitutional right at issue.” Garrett, supra, at 365, 368. The Court suggests the issue is “the right to be free from gender-based discrimination in the workplace,” ante, at 728, and then it embarks on a survey of our precedents speaking to “[t]he history of the many state laws limiting women’s employment opportunities,” ante, at 729. All would agree that women historically have been subjected to conditions in which their employment opportunities are more limited than those available to men. As the Court acknowledges, however, Congress responded to this problem by abrogating States’ sovereign immunity in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a). Ante, at 729; see also Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976). The provision now before us, 29 U. S. C. § 2612(a)(1)(C), has a different aim than Title VII. It seeks to ensure that eligible employees, irrespective of gender, can take a minimum amount of leave time to care for an ill relative.

The relevant question, as the Court seems to acknowledge, is whether, notwithstanding the passage of Title VII and similar state legislation, the States continued to engage in widespread discrimination on the basis of gender in the pro*746vision of family leave benefits. Ante, at 730. If such a pattern were shown, the Eleventh Amendment would not bar Congress from devising a congruent and proportional remedy. The evidence to substantiate this charge must be far more specific, however, than a simple recitation of a general history of employment discrimination against women. When the federal statute seeks to abrogate state sovereign immunity, the Court should be more careful to insist on adherence to the analytic requirements set forth in its own precedents. Persisting overall effects of gender-based discrimination at the workplace must not be ignored; but simply noting the problem is not a substitute for evidence which identifies some real discrimination the family leave rules are designed to prevent.

Respondents fail to make the requisite showing. The Act’s findings of purpose are devoid of any discussion of the relevant evidence. See Lizzi v. Alexander, 255 F. 3d 128, 135 (CA4 2001) (“In making [its] finding of purpose, Congress did not identify, as it is required to do, any pattern of gender discrimination by the states with respect to the granting of employment leave for the purpose of providing family or medical care”); see also Chittister v. Department of Community and Econ. Dev., 226 F. 3d 223, 228-229 (CA3 2000) (“Notably absent is any finding concerning the existence, much less the prevalence, in public employment of personal sick leave practices that amounted to intentional gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause”).

As the Court seems to recognize, the evidence considered by Congress concerned discriminatory practices of the private sector, not those of state employers. Ante, at 730-731, n. 3. The statistical information compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which are the only factual findings the Court cites, surveyed only private employers. Ante, at 730. While the evidence of discrimination by private entities may be relevant, it does not, by itself, justify the abrogation of States’ sovereign immunity. Garrett, 531 *747U. S., at 368 (“Congress’ § 5 authority is appropriately exercised only in response to state transgressions”).

The Court seeks to connect the evidence of private discrimination to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional behavior by States through inferences drawn from two sources. The first is testimony by Meryl Frank, Director of the Infant Care Leave Project, Yale Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy, who surveyed both private and public employers in all 50 States and found little variation between the leave policies in the two sectors. Ante, at 730-731, n. 3 (citing The Parental and Medical Leave Act of 1986: Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations and the Subcommittee on Labor Standards of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., 33 (1986) (hereinafter Joint Hearing)). The second is a view expressed by the Washington Council of Lawyers that even “‘[wjhere child-care leave policies do exist, men, both in the public and private sectors, receive notoriously discriminatory treatment in their requests for such leave.’ ” Ante, at 731 (quoting Joint Hearing 147) (emphasis added by the Court).

Both statements were made during the hearings on the proposed 1986 national leave legislation, and so preceded the Act by seven years. The 1986 bill, which was not enacted, differed in an important respect from the legislation Congress eventually passed. That proposal sought to provide parenting leave, not leave to care for another ill family member. Compare H. R. 4300, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., §§102(3), 103(a) (1986), with 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C). See also L. Gladstone, Congressional Research Service Issue Brief, Family and Medical Leave Legislation, pp. 4-5, 10 (Oct. 26, 1995); Tr. of Oral Arg. 43 (statement of counsel for the United States that “the first time that the family leave was introduced and the first time the section (5) authority was invoked was in H. R. 925,” which was proposed in 1987). The testimony on which the Court relies concerned the discrimination *748with respect to the parenting leave. See Joint Hearing 81 (statement of Meryl Frank) (the Yale Bush study “evaluate[d] the impact of the changing composition of the workplace on families with infants”); id., at 147 (statement of the Washington Council of Lawyers) (“[F]or the first time, childcare responsibilities of both natural and adoptive mothers and fathers will be legislatively protected”). Even if this isolated testimony could support an inference that private sector’s gender-based discrimination in the provision of parenting leave was parallel to the behavior by state actors in 1986, the evidence would not be probative of the States’ conduct some seven years later with respect to a statutory provision conferring a different benefit. The Court of Appeals admitted as much: “We recognize that a weakness in this evidence as applied to Hibbs’ case is that the BLS and Yale Bush Center studies deal only with parental leave, not with leave to care for a sick family member. They thus do not document a widespread pattern of precisely the kind of discrimination that § 2612(a)(1)(C) is intended to prevent.” 273 F. 3d 844, 859 (CA9 2001).

The Court’s reliance on evidence suggesting States provided men and women with the parenting leave of different length, ante, at 731, and n. 5, suffers from the same flaw. This evidence concerns the Act’s grant of parenting leave, §§ 2612(a)(1)(A), (B), and is too attenuated to justify the family leave provision. The Court of Appeals’ conclusion to the contrary was based on an assertion that “if states discriminate along gender lines regarding the one kind of leave, then they are likely to do so regarding the other.” 273 F. 3d, at 859. The charge that a State has engaged in a pattern of unconstitutional discrimination against its citizens is a most serious one. It must be supported by more than conjecture.

The Court maintains the evidence pertaining to the parenting leave is relevant because both parenting and family leave provisions respond to “the same gender stereotype: that women’s family duties trump those of the workplace.” *749Ante, at 732, n. 5. This sets the contours of the inquiry at too high a level of abstraction. The question is not whether the family leave provision is a congruent and proportional response to general gender-based stereotypes in employment which “ha[ve] historically produced discrimination in the hiring and promotion of women,” ibid.; the question is whether it is a proper remedy to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional discrimination by States in the grant of family leave. The evidence of gender-based stereotypes is too remote to support the required showing.

The Court next argues that “even where state laws and policies were not facially discriminatory, they were applied in discriminatory ways.” Ante, at 732. This charge is based on an allegation that many States did not guarantee the right to family leave by statute, instead leaving the decision up to individual employers, who could subject employees to “ ‘discretionary and possibly unequal treatment.’ ” Ibid. (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 103-8, pt. 2, pp. 10-11 (1993)). The study from which the Court derives this conclusion examined “the parental leave policies of Federal executive branch agencies,” H. R. Rep. No. 103-8, at 10, not those of the States. The study explicitly stated that its conclusions concerned federal employees: ‘“[I]n the absence of a national minimum standard for granting leave for parental purposes, the authority to grant leave and to arrange the length of that leave rests with individual supervisors, leaving Federal employees open to discretionary and possibly unequal treatment.’” Id., at 10-11. A history of discrimination on the part of the Federal Government may, in some situations, support an inference of similar conduct by the States, but the Court does not explain why the inference is justified here.

Even if there were evidence that individual state employers, in the absence of clear statutory guidelines, discriminated in the administration of leave benefits, this circumstance alone would not support a finding of a state-sponsored pattern of discrimination. The evidence could perhaps sup*750port the charge of disparate impact, but not a charge that States have engaged in a pattern of intentional discrimination prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. Garrett, 531 U. S., at 372-373 (citing Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 239 (1976)).

The federal-state equivalence upon which the Court places such emphasis is a deficient rationale at an even more fundamental level, however; for the States appear to have been ahead of Congress in providing gender-neutral family leave benefits. Thirty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had adopted some form of family-care leave in the years preceding the Act’s adoption. The reports in both Houses of Congress noted this fact. H. R. Rep. No. 103-8, at 32-33; S. Rep. No. 103-3, pp. 20-21 (1993); see also Brief for State of Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae 18-22. Congressional hearings noted that the provision of family leave was “an issue which has picked up tremendous momentum in the States, with some 21 of them having some form of family or medical leave on the books.” The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1991: Hearing on H. R. 2 before the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 4 (1991) (statement of Rep. Marge Roukema). Congress relied on the experience of the States in designing the national leave policy to be cost effective and gender neutral. S. Rep. No. 103-3, at 12-14; The Parental and Medical Leave Act of 1987: Hearings on S. 249 before the Subcommittee on Children, Family, Drugs and Alcoholism of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, pp. 194-195, 533-534 (1987). Congress also acknowledged that many States had implemented leave policies more generous than those envisioned by the Act. H. R. Rep. No. 103-8, pt. 1, at 50; S. Rep. No. 103-3, at 38. At the very least, the history of the Act suggests States were in the process of solving any existing gender-based discrimination in the provision of family leave.

*751The Court acknowledges that States have adopted family leave programs prior to federal intervention, but argues these policies suffered from serious imperfections. Ante, at 733-734. Even if correct, this observation proves, at most, that programs more generous and more effective than those operated by the States were feasible. That the States did not devise the optimal programs is not, however, evidence that the States were perpetuating unconstitutional discrimination. Given that the States assumed a pioneering role in the creation of family leave schemes, it is not surprising these early efforts may have been imperfect. This is altogether different, however, from purposeful discrimination.

The Court’s lengthy discussion of the allegedly deficient state policies falls short of meeting this standard. A great majority of these programs exhibit no constitutional defect and, in fact, are authorized by this Court’s precedent. The Court points out that seven States adopted leave provisions applicable only to women. Ante, at 733. Yet it must acknowledge that three of these schemes concerned solely pregnancy disability leave. Ante, at 733, n. 6 (citing 3 Colo. Code Regs. §708-1, Rule 80.8 (2002); Iowa Code §216.6(2) (2000); N. H. Stat. Ann. §354-A:7(VI)(b) (Michie Supp. 2000)). Our cases make clear that a State does not violate the Equal Protection Clause by granting pregnancy disability leave to women without providing for a grant of parenting leave to men. Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U. S. 484, 496-497, n. 20 (1974); see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 49 (counsel for the United States conceding that Geduldig would permit this practice). The Court treats the pregnancy disability scheme of the fourth State, Louisiana, as a disguised gender-discriminatory provision of parenting leave because the scheme would permit leave in excess of the period Congress believed to be medically necessary for pregnancy disability. Ante, at 733, n. 6. The Louisiana statute, however, granted leave only for “that period during which the female employee is disabled on account of pregnancy, child*752birth, or related medical conditions.” La. Stat. Ann. §23:1008(A)(2)(b) (West Supp. 1993) (repealed 1997). Properly administered, the scheme, despite its generous maximum, would not transform into a discriminatory “4-month maternity leave for female employees only.” Ante, at 733, n. 6.

The Court next observes that 12 States “provided their employees no family leave, beyond an initial childbirth or adoption.” Ante, at 733. Four of these States are those which, as discussed above, offered pregnancy disability leave only. See ante, at 733, n. 7 (citing 3 Colo. Code Regs. §708-1, Rule 80.8 (2002); Iowa Code §216.6(2) (2000); La. Stat. Ann. §23:1008(A)(2) (West Supp. 1993) (repealed 1997); N. H. Stat. Ann. § 354-A:7(VI)(b) (Michie Supp. 2000)). Of the remaining eight States, five offered parenting leave to both men and women on an equal basis; a practice which no one contends suffers from a constitutional infirmity. See ante, at 733-734, n. 7 (citing Del. Code Ann., Tit. 29, §5116 (1997); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §337.015 (Michie 2001); Mo. Rev. Stat. §105.271 (2000); N.Y. Lab. Law §201-e (West 2002); U. S. Dept. of Labor, Women’s Bureau, State Maternity/ Family Leave Law, p. 12 (June 1993) (discussing the policy adopted by the Virginia Department of Personnel and Training)). The Court does not explain how the provision of social benefits either on a gender-neutral level (as with the parenting leave) or in a way permitted by this Court’s case law (as with the pregnancy disability leave) offends the Constitution. Instead, the Court seems to suggest that a pattern of unconstitutional conduct may be inferred solely because a State, in providing its citizens with social benefits, does not make these benefits as generous or extensive as Congress would later deem appropriate.

The Court further chastises the States for having “provided no statutorily guaranteed right to family leave, offering instead only voluntary or discretionary leave programs.” Ante, at 733-734; see also ante, at 734 (“[F]our States pro*753vided leave only through administrative regulations or personnel policies”). The Court does not argue the States intended to enable employers to discriminate in the provision of family leave; nor, as already noted, is there evidence state employers discriminated in the administration of leave benefits. See supra, at 749-750. Under the Court’s reasoning, Congress seems justified in abrogating state immunity from private suits whenever the State’s social benefits program is not enshrined in the statutory code and provides employers with discretion.

Stripped of the conduct which exhibits no constitutional infirmity, the Court’s “extensive] and specific]... record of unconstitutional state conduct,” ante, at 735, n. 11, boils down to the fact that three States, Massachusetts, Kansas, and Tennessee, provided parenting leave only to their female employees, and had no program for granting their employees (male or female) family leave. See ante, at 733-734, nn. 6 and 7 (citing Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 149, § 105D (West 1997); Kan. Admin. Regs. 21-32-6(d) (2003); Tenn. Code Ann. §4-21-408(a) (1998)). As already explained, supra, at 748-749, the evidence related to the parenting leave is simply too attenuated to support a charge of unconstitutional discrimination in the provision of family leave. Nor, as the Court seems to acknowledge, does the Constitution require States to provide their employees with any family leave at all. Ante, at 738. A State’s failure to devise a family leave program is not, then, evidence of unconstitutional behavior.

Considered in its entirety, the evidence fails to document a pattern of unconstitutional conduct sufficient to justify the abrogation of States’ sovereign immunity. The few incidents identified by the Court “fall far short of even suggesting the pattern of unconstitutional discrimination on which §5 legislation must be based.” Garrett, 531 U. S., at 370; see also Kimel, 528 U. S., at 89-91; City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 530-531. Juxtaposed to this evidence is the States’ record of addressing gender-based discrimination in the provi*754sion of leave benefits on their own volition. See generally Brief for State of Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae 5-14.

Our concern with gender discrimination, which is subjected to heightened scrutiny, as opposed to age- or disability-based distinctions, which are reviewed under rational standard, see Kimel, supra, at 83-84; Garrett, supra, at 366-367, does not alter this conclusion. The application of heightened scrutiny is designed to ensure gender-based classifications are not based on the entrenched and pervasive stereotypes which inhibit women’s progress in the workplace. Ante, at 736. This consideration does not divest respondents of their burden to show that “Congress identified a history and pattern of unconstitutional employment discrimination by the States.” Garrett, supra, at 368. The Court seems to reaffirm this requirement. Ante, at 729 (“We now inquire whether Congress had evidence of a pattern of constitutional violations on the part of the States ...”); see also ante, at 735 (“[T]he States’ record of unconstitutional participation in, and fostering of, gender-based discrimination in the administration of leave benefits is weighty enough to justify the enactment of prophylactic §5 legislation”). In my submission, however, the Court does not follow it. Given the insufficiency of the evidence that States discriminated in the provision of family leave, the unfortunate fact that stereotypes about women continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem would not alone support the charge that a State has engaged in a practice designed to deny its citizens the equal protection of the laws. Garrett, supra, at 369.

The paucity of evidence to support the case the Court tries to make demonstrates that Congress was not responding with a congruent and proportional remedy to a perceived course of unconstitutional conduct. Instead, it enacted a substantive entitlement program of its own. If Congress had been concerned about different treatment of men and women with respect to family leave, a congruent remedy *755would have sought to ensure the benefits of any leave program enacted by a State are available to men and women on an equal basis. Instead, the Act imposes, across the board, a requirement that States grant a minimum of 12 weeks of leave per year. 29 U. S. C. § 2612(a)(1)(C). This requirement may represent Congress’ considered judgment as to the optimal balance between the family obligations of workers and the interests of employers, and the States may decide to follow these guidelines in designing their own family leave benefits. It does, not follow, however, that if the States choose to enact a different benefit scheme, they should be deemed to engage in unconstitutional conduct and forced to open their treasuries to private suits for damages.

Well before the federal enactment, Nevada not only provided its employees, on a gender-neutral basis, with an option of requesting up to one year of unpaid leave, Nev. Admin. Code §284.578(1) (1984), but also permitted, subject to approval and other conditions, leaves of absence in excess of one year, § 284.578(2). Nevada state employees were also entitled to use up to 10 days of their accumulated paid sick leave to care for an ill relative. §284.558(1). Nevada, in addition, had a program of special “catastrophic leave.” State employees could donate their accrued sick leave to a general fund to aid employees who needed additional leave to care for a relative with a serious illness. Nev. Rev. Stat. §284.362(1) (1995).

To be sure, the Nevada scheme did not track that devised by the Act in all respects. The provision of unpaid leave was discretionary and subject to a possible reporting requirement. Nev. Admin. Code §284.578(2)(3) (1984). A congruent remedy to any discriminatory exercise of discretion, however, is the requirement that the grant of leave be administered on a gender-equal basis, not the displacement of the State’s scheme by a federal one. The scheme enacted by the Act does not respect the States’ autonomous power to design their own social benefits regime.

*756Were more proof needed to show that this is an entitlement program, not a remedial statute, it should suffice to note that the Act does not even purport to bar discrimination in some leave programs the States do enact and administer. Under the Act, a State is allowed to provide women with, say, 24 weeks of family leave per year but provide only 12 weeks of leave to men. As the counsel for the United States conceded during the argument, a law of this kind might run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause or Title VII, but it would not constitute a violation of the Act. Tr. of Oral Arg. 49. The Act on its face is not drawn as a remedy to gender-based discrimination in family leave.

It has been long acknowledged that federal legislation which “deters or remedies constitutional violations can fall within the sweep of Congress’ enforcement power even if in the process it prohibits conduct which is not itself unconstitutional.” City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 518; see also ante, at 737 (in exercising its power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress “may prohibit ‘a somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself forbidden by the Amendment’s text’ ” (quoting Kimel, 528 U. S., at 81)). The Court has explained, however, that Congress may not “enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is.” City of Boerne, supra, at 519. The dual requirement that Congress identify a pervasive pattern of unconstitutional state conduct and that its remedy be proportional and congruent to the violation is designed to separate permissible exercises of congressional power from instances where Congress seeks to enact a substantive entitlement under the guise of its § 5 authority.

The Court’s precedents upholding the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as a proper exercise of Congress’ remedial power are instructive. In South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301 (1966), the Court concluded that the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on state literacy tests was an appropriate method of enforcing the constitutional protection against racial dis*757crimination in voting. This measure was justified because “Congress documented a marked pattern of unconstitutional action by the States.” Garrett, 531 U. S., at 373 (citing Katzenbach, supra, at 312, 313); see also City of Boerne, supra, at 525 (“We noted evidence in the record reflecting the subsisting and pervasive discriminatory — and therefore unconstitutional — use of literacy tests” (citing Katzenbach, supra, at 333-334)). Congress’ response was a “limited remedial scheme designed to guarantee meaningful enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment.” Garrett, supra, at 373. This scheme was both congruent, because it “aimed at areas where voting discrimination has been most flagrant,” Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 315, and proportional, because it was necessary to “banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century,” id., at 308. The Court acknowledged Congress’ power to devise “strong remedial and preventive measures” to safeguard voting rights on subsequent occasions, but always explained that these measures were legitimate because they were responding to a pattern of “the widespread and persisting deprivation of constitutional rights resulting from this country’s history of racial discrimination.” City of Boerne, supra, at 526-527 (citing Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112 (1970); City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156 (1980); Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641 (1966)).

This principle of our § 5 jurisprudence is well illustrated not only by the Court’s opinions in these cases but also by the late Justice Harlan’s dissent in Katzenbach v. Morgan. There, Justice Harlan contrasted his vote to invalidate a federal ban on New York state literacy tests from his earlier decision, in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, to uphold stronger remedial measures against the State of South Carolina, such as suspension of literacy tests, imposition of pre-clearance requirements for any changes in state voting laws, and appointment of federal voting examiners. Katzenbach *758v. Morgan, supra, at 659, 667; see also South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra, at 315-323. Justice Harlan explained that in the case of South Carolina there was “Voluminous legislative history’ as well as judicial precedents supporting the basic congressional findings that the clear commands of the Fifteenth Amendment had been infringed by various state subterfuges. . . . Given the existence of the evil, we held the remedial steps taken by the legislature under the Enforcement Clause of the Fifteenth Amendment to be a justifiable exercise of congressional initiative.” 384 U. S., at 667 (quoting South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra, at 309, 329-330). By contrast, the New York case, in his view, lacked a showing that “there has in fact been an infringement of that constitutional command, that is, whether a particular state practice . . . offend[ed] the command of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 384 U. S., at 667. In the absence of evidence that a State has engaged in unconstitutional conduct, Justice Harlan would have concluded that the literacy test ban Congress sought to impose was not an “appropriate remedial measur[e] to redress and prevent the wrongs,” but an impermissible attempt “to define the substantive scope of the Amendment.” Id., at 666, 668.

For the same reasons, the abrogation of state sovereign immunity pursuant to Title VII was a legitimate congressional response to a pattern of gender-based discrimination in employment. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976). The family leave benefit conferred by the Act is, by contrast, a substantive benefit Congress chose to confer upon state employees. See City of Boerne, supra, at 520 (“There must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end. Lacking such a connection, legislation may become substantive in operation and effect”). The plain truth is Congress did not “ac[t] to accomplish the legitimate end of enforcing judicially-recognized Fourteenth Amendment *759rights, [but] instead pursued an object outside the scope of Section Five by imposing new, non-remedial legal obligations on the states.” Beck, The Heart of Federalism: Pretext Review of Means-End Relationships, 36 U. C. D. L. Rev. 407, 440 (2003).

It bears emphasis that, even were the Court to bar uncon-sented federal suits by private individuals for money damages from a State, individuals whose rights under the Act were violated would not be without recourse. The Act is likely a valid exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and so the standards it prescribes will be binding upon the States. The United States may enforce these standards in actions for money damages; and private individuals may bring actions against state officials for injunctive relief under Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908). What is at issue is only whether the States can be subjected, without consent, to suits brought by private persons seeking to collect moneys from the state treasury. Their immunity cannot be abrogated without documentation of a pattern of unconstitutional acts by the States, and only then by a congruent and proportional remedy. There has been a complete failure by respondents to carry their burden to establish each of these necessary propositions. I would hold that the Act is not a valid abrogation of state sovereign immunity and dissent with respect from the Court’s conclusion to the contrary.