In the United States Supreme Court case United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans (1976), the court ruled in favor of United Airlines, stating that an employer cannot be held liable for discrimination if it is not a present violation even though past discriminatory actions may have led to current disparities. The plaintiff, Lorena Evans was forced to resign from her flight attendant position at United Airlines due to their policy against married flight attendants which was later deemed discriminatory and illegal. After this ruling she was rehired but without seniority benefits accrued during her previous employment period with them because according to company policy only continuous service could count towards seniority benefits. She filed suit alleging that denying her prior service credit perpetuated the effects of past discrimination based on marital status contrary to Title VII of Civil Rights Act 1964 . However, the Supreme Court found no merit in this argument as there were no present violations by United Airlines since they had discontinued their unlawful practice before she reapplied and hence did not violate Title VII.

In the dissenting opinion for United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision failed to acknowledge the continuing impact of past discrimination on present employment status. He contended that by focusing solely on whether there was a current violation and ignoring past discriminatory practices, the court effectively allowed employers to benefit from their own unlawful actions as long as they were not repeated within a certain time frame. This interpretation, he believed, contradicted both precedent and congressional intent behind Title VII of Civil Rights Act which aimed at eliminating all forms of job discrimination based on race or sex etc., including those resulting from previous unjust acts. Furthermore, he pointed out that it is often difficult for employees to challenge discriminatory policies immediately due to fear of retaliation or lack of awareness about their rights; hence such narrow view could unfairly limit victims' ability to seek redress.