AT&T Corporation v. Noreen Hulteen et al. (556 U.S. 701)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 18, 2009 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 556 U.S. 701 · 129 S. Ct. 1962
- Decided
- May 18, 2009
- Term
- October Term 2008
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. The question is whether an employer necessarily violates the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U. S. C. §2000e(k), when it pays pension benefits calculated in part under an accrual rule, applied only prior to the PDA, that gave less retirement credit for pregnancy leave than for medical leave generally. We hold there is no necessary violation; and the benefit calculation rule in this case is part of a bona fide seniority system under § 703(h) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2QQ0e-2(h), which insulates it from challenge. I Since 1914, AT&T Corporation (then American Telephone & Telegraph Company) and its Bell System Operating Companies, including Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereinafter, collectively, AT&T), have provided pensions and other benefits based on a seniority system that relies upon an employee’s term of employment, understood as the period of service at the company minus uncredited leave time. In the 1960s and early to mid-1970s, AT&T employees on “disability” leave got full service credit for the entire periods of absence, but those who took “personal” leaves of absence received maximum service credit of 30 days. Leave for pregnancy was treated as personal, not disability. AT&T altered this practice in 1977 by adopting its Maternity Payment Plan (MPP), entitling…
Excerpt of a 26,505-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.