Term: 2008
Docket: 07-543
At&t Corporation v. Noreen Hulteen Et Al.
- Pro
07-543 AT&T CORP. V. HULTEEN DECISION BELOW: 498 F3d 4001 CERT. GRANTED 6/23/2008 QUESTION PRESENTED: Before the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), it was lawful to award less service credit for pregnancy leaves than for other temporary disability leaves. Gilbert v. Gen. Elec. Co., 429 U.S. 125 (1976). Accordingly, the questions presented are 1. Whether an employer engages in a current violation of Title VII when, in making post-PDA eligibility determinations for pension and other benefits, the employer fails to restore service credit that female employees lost when they took pregnancy leaves under lawful pre-PDA leave policies. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s finding of a current violation of Title VII in such circumstances gives impermissible retroactive effect to the PDA. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-16087
The U.S. Supreme Court case AT&T Corporation v. Noreen Hulteen et al., 2008, revolved around the issue of whether or not AT&T's pension plan discriminated against women who took pregnancy leave before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) was passed in 1978. The plaintiffs, four women employees of AT&T, argued that their pensions were unfairly reduced because they received less service credit for pregnancy leave than for other types of medical leave prior to the PDA’s enactment. However, AT&T contended that its actions were legal at the time and it should not be held liable retroactively under new laws. In a decision favoring AT&T Corp., Justice David Souter wrote on behalf of a seven-justice majority stating that there was no violation as long as employers treated past pregnancy leaves in line with how they treated other kinds of medical leaves at that time - even if such treatment would now be considered discriminatory under current law. This ruling essentially upheld an earlier decision by lower courts which had also ruled in favor of AT&T Corp., thereby affirming that companies cannot be held accountable retrospectively for policies enacted prior to changes in legislation.
In the dissenting opinion for AT&T Corporation v. Noreen Hulteen et al., Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with both the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She contended that by allowing AT&T to calculate pension benefits in a way that disadvantaged women who had taken pregnancy leave prior to PDA’s enactment, it perpetuated past discrimination against pregnant employees. The company’s policy, she stated, effectively carried forward into retirement years differential treatment of male and female workers' pay during their active employment years; this constituted unlawful discrimination under Title VII as amended by PDA. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's view on when an act of discrimination occurs - stating it should be considered each time discriminatory compensation is received rather than at initial calculation only.
