| Free Trial / Sign Up | Products / Prices / Samples | About Us / Contact | FAQs | Home |
|
Latest employment law cases Summaries and links to full text |
|
Emailed directly to you and online all the time |
| Latest Cases | Key Word Search | Law Firm Directory | Arbitrator Directory | Law School Directory | Legal Resources / Memos |
| Employment Law Memo |
| Arbitration Law Memo |
| NLRB Law Memo |
| Employment Law Blog |
| Arbitration Law Blog |
| Employment Law 101 |
| Articles |
| Supreme Court Cases |
| EEOC Info |
| NLRB Info |
|
United States Supreme Court Employment Law Cases
All pending employment law cases - click here |
AT&T Corporation v.
Hulteen (07-543)
Seniority system insulates retirement calculations based on pre-PDA rules that
differentiated on the basis of pregnancy (7-2)
Decided May 15, 2009
[Text of full
opinion]
|
Prior to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA),
enacted in 1978, the employer based pension calculations on a seniority system
that relied on years of service minus uncredited leave time, giving less
retirement credit for pregnancy absences than for medical leave generally. Upon
enactment of the PDA in 1978, the employer replaced its old plan with the
Anticipated Disability Plan, which provided the same service credit for
pregnancy leave as for other disabilities prospectively, but did not make any
retroactive adjustments for the pre-PDA personnel policies. Employee Hulteen
therefore received less service credit for her pre-PDA pregnancy leave than she
would have for general disability leave, resulting in a reduction in her total
employment term and, consequently, a smaller pension. The lower courts held that
this violated Title VII.
The US Supreme Court reversed (7-2),
holding that an employer does not necessarily violate the PDA when it pays
pension benefits calculated in part under an accrual rule, applied only pre-PDA,
that gave less retirement credit for pregnancy than for medical leave generally.
Because the employer's pension payments accord with a bona fide seniority
system's terms, they are insulated from challenge under Title VII §703(h). The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
did not apply to this case because the employer's pre-PDA decision not to
award Hulteen service credit for pregnancy leave was not discriminatory, with
the consequence that Hulteen has not been "affected by application of a
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice."
Case below: Hulteen
v. AT&T Corporation (9th Cir en banc 08/17/2007) (14-1)
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.
Certiorari Documents:
Briefs on the merits:
Counsel:
|
EEOC | NLRB | Supreme Court | Employment Law Blog | Arbitration Blog | Employment Law 101
