In the Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., case of 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of AT&T Technologies and against female employees who claimed that their seniority system was discriminatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because it had a disparate impact on women. The court held that an employer's adoption of a facially neutral seniority system could not be challenged as discriminatory unless there was evidence to show intentional discrimination at the time it was adopted. This meant that even if such a system disproportionately affected one group over another, it would still be considered lawful unless plaintiffs could prove intent to discriminate when establishing this policy. The decision limited workers' ability to challenge potentially discriminatory practices long after they were implemented.

In the dissenting opinion for Lorance et al. v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., et al., Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with both the language and purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. He asserted that a discriminatory seniority system should not be immune from challenge simply because it was adopted without intent to discriminate or before an affected employee was hired. Instead, he believed such systems perpetuate past discrimination and thus violate Title VII every time they are applied to adversely affect an individual on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Furthermore, he contended that employees should have 180 days after being harmed by application of a discriminatory seniority rule to file their claim rather than only 180 days after adoption of such rules as decided by majority opinion.