US Supreme Court Decision AT&T. versus Hulteen - Research Paper Example

? US Supreme Court Case: AT & T. v. Hulteen 556_ (2009) (No- 07-543 Introduction The instant case is a United States Supreme Court case in which the primary issue was to determine whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) is violated by an employer, when pensions are calculated on the basis of accrual rule, giving less retirement credit for pregnancy than for medical leave (AT & T Corp v. Hulteen 1). The matter in controversy is clear, if the employer does not give an employee full pension benefit by excluding the time of pregnancy leave on the ground that when the employee took pregnancy leave, the PDA Act was not operative, Can the employee file a suit for discrimination? Can the employee enforce credited leave time for such absence? Can the employee get relief under U.S. law and enforce greater pension benefit? What is the present law with regard to this matter? To find answers to the above questions, a research and in depth analysis of the case in hand would surely prove to be of great help, as discussed in the latter context of the paper. 2. The Dispute Before proceeding further into the case, knowledge of the facts of the case is essential. The petitioner of this case was the American Telegraph & Telephone Company (AT & T), whereas the respondents consisted of individual respondents in the form of Noreen Hulteen, Eleanora Collet, Elizabeth Snyder, Linda Porter, and the collective-bargaining representative of the employees, the CWA or the Communications Workers of America (AT & T Corp v. Hulteen 3). AT & T provided pensions and other benefits to its employees on the basis of seniority system, relying upon the term of employment, which was equivalent to service at the company minus uncredited leave time. For a period extending from 1960 to mid-1970s the employees on disability leave got full service leave but those who took personal leave, which also included leaves for pregnancy, received a maximum service credit of 30 days. The respondents of this case received less service credit for pregnancy leave than they should have received, if they had taken a leave for disability. Respondent Noreen Hulteen received seven months less credit, Eleanora Collet received six months less credit, while Elizabeth Snyder and Linda Porter received two months less payment. If the total term of employment was not so decreased, they would receive greater pension benefit (AT & T Corp v. Hulteen 2-3). The individual respondents of this case and the CWA filed charges of discrimination against AT & T with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After receipt of complaint EEOC issued a Letter of determination finding that AT & T had discriminated against Hulteen and similar class. The EEOC issued a notice of right to sue to the respondent and the CWA, after which Hulteen filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court on this issue to resolve a split between the decision of the Ninth Circuit on the one hand and on the other hand the Sixth and Seventh Circuits on the same issue (AT & T Corp v. Hulteen 3-4). Hulteen had to take the issue to the Court without negotiating a settlement due to the fact that she had to satisfy herself with considerably low pension than she would have received, if she would not have taken the pregnancy leave. The policy of AT & T Corp. will never have allowed her to enjoy the full pension benefits and she had to file a suit. The EEOC had to resort to a case, as it had to keep in mind the interest of the other workers. Finally, AT & T had to move to the Supreme Court, as it was not satisfied with the decision of the Ninth circuit. 3. The Procedure The suit never reached the District Court at the first instance. The individual respondents of this case and the CWA filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC, stating that discrimination has taken place on the basis of sex and pregnancy in violation of Title VII. The suit reached the District Court only after the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination in 1998 and a notice of right to sue to each respondent and the CWA. After which the case moved to the District Court for the Northern District of California, then to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and finally moved to the United States Supreme Court after Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court in the case (AT & T Corp v. Hulteen 3-4). The suit was filed in the United States District by Hutleen et al, so that they may have a higher pension benefit for all employees. However, AT & T never got judgment in favor of themselves1 This made them file a suit in the United States Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 8, 2006.A panel of Court reversed the judgment passed by the District Court stating that Pallas gave PDA a impermissible retroactive effect. A majority of the active judges of the court voted for rehearing the case en banc. This made reconsideration of the appeal de novo and affirmation of the judgment passed by the District Court (Hulteen v. AT Corporation). AT & T being dissatisfied by the judgment preferred appeal to the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court granted Certiorari in the said matter as they found conflicting decisions on the same issue passed by the Court of Ninth Circuit on the one hand and Sixth and Seventh Circuit on the other hand, which finally decided the suit.2 When the case first moved to the District Court for the Northern District of California, the district passed a judgment in favor of Hulteen and others, based on a prior decision passed by the court of Ninth Circuit, Pallas v. Pacific Bell, 940 F. 2d 1324 (1991), which found that Title VII violation takes place where pre PDA accrual rules that discriminated on the basis of pregnancy were implemented in the calculation of Post PDA retirement eligibility calculations (AT & T Corp v. Hulteen 4). The Court based its decision on Pallas in spite of the fact that there were conflicting decisions in the same matter in some other courts. They gave the reason for such, as they had to follow the decision of their own Circuit in case they are faced with a decision of any other conflicting decision of other circuit on the same issue and the court cited Gardner Construction Co v. Assurance Co of America for this purpose (Noreen Hulteen et al v. AT & T Corp et al 10). The Plaintiffs in the District Court that is Hulteen et al had two allegations. Firstly, failure to credit the time they were on pregnancy leave constituted discrimination on the basis of sex is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and secondly, it was also a breach of the AT & T benefit plan’s fiduciary duty to treat all plan members equally in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or ERSIA (Noreen Hulteen et al v. AT & T Corp et al 1). The Court accorded its decision to Pallas due to its weight. The plaintiffs established in the suit filed in the District Court that they were entitled to summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law on the allegation that AT & T had violated Title VII. On the other hand defendants established that the statute of limitations eliminated the claim of the plaintiff as to the breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. This made the Court grant summary judgment for claim one of plaintiff but deny summary judgment for claim two made by the plaintiff. On the contrary, defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied as to claim one made by the plaintiff and granted as to the second claim made by the plaintiff (Noreen Hulteen et al v. AT & T Corp et al 12). The case went to the Court of appeals for the ninth Circuit after it was decided by the District Court. The panel of the Circuit Court reversed the judgment of the District Court and again affirmed the decision of District Court, while deciding en banc, in applying Pallas and the summary judgment of made by it against AT & T. The Circuit Court further held their decision made in Pallas that the calculation of service credit which excludes the time spent on pregnancy leave violates the Title VII clause was correct (Hulteen v. AT Corporation). 4. The Supreme Court’s Decision The Supreme Court’s decision on the case gave rise to binding precedent which shall be followed by all the inferior courts if a similar situation does arise in future. The question before the Supreme Court was to determine whether paying pension to an employee on the basis of an accrual rule, which applied prior to Passage of PDA, violated the PDA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (AT & T Corp v. Hulteen 1). The Supreme Court held that it did not on the basis of Title VII §703(h). It provides that an employer’s act of applying different standards of compensation on the basis of a bonafide system shall not result in an intention to discriminate because of sex. The Court further supported it’s contention on the basis of the case, Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, in which the Court held before that a pre-Title VII seniority system which disproportionately advantaged white against the minority employees, nevertheless made a bonafide system without any discriminatory terms, under section 703(h), on condition that the discrimination resulted from the employer’s hiring practices and job assignments. The similarity between the case in hand and that of Teamsters was that both cases section 703(h) applies (AT & T Corp v. Hulteen 2). The second case on the basis of which the Court gave its decision was Gilbert, 429 U.S. 136. It was held in Gilbert that an accrual rule which limits the seniority credit for the time taken for pregnancy leave did not discriminate on the basis of sex. It was law at the time of Gilbert that an exclusion of pregnancy from a disability benefits plan did not make any gendered based discrimination (AT & T Corp v. Hulteen 2) . The PDA did not have any retroactive effect and as such it should not be applied to a Pre-PDA pregnancy. The provisions of Section 706(e), which states that and unlawful employment practice takes place, when the seniority has been adopted with the intention of discrimination does not apply in this case, as the similarity of the case with Gilbert held that AT & T’s seniority system was not at all discriminatory. Moreover, it cannot be argued that the companies choice of not giving post-PDA credit to pre-PDA pregnancy was discriminatory. Furthermore, the case Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 does not apply in this case as the plan in Bazemore did not include a seniority system as in the present case. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, Souter, J delivered the opinion that Hulteen has not been affected by a discriminatory compensation decision, in which Roberts, C.J. and others joined. While the above decision was passed Ginsburg, J. joined in it. 5. An insight into the case The Court’s decision is absolutely correct, when it comes to giving fare judgment. AT and T corporation was precluded from any sort of liability in the given case by Title VII 703(h). The Court gave cited cases in its support which is Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 and Gilbert, 429 U.S. 136. The other important fact in this case was that Pregnancy Discrimination Act was never effective in the period in which Hulteen took pregnancy leave. As such it was not unjust and improper to discriminate pregnancy leave with that of disability leave for which full credit of service period was received. The companies policy was absolutely correct when according to the legal norms of the period. Moreover, the other most important issue is that the PDA did not have retrospective effect. As such the passage of the PDA later does not have any impact on the past policies of the company and the decision based on those past policies. Whether the pregnancy leave period will be counted in the service period will be determined by the time in which the incident took place and the law of the time, not by the present laws. The Courts judgment highlighted an affirmation of the above contention. 6. Conclusion It can be concluded from the above facts and circumstances that if the employer does not give an employee full pension benefit by excluding the time of pregnancy leave on the ground that when the employee took pregnancy leave, the PDA Act was not operative, the employee will not be getting the relief in the form of greater pension benefits by the pregnancy leave time being taken into account, and this is law with regard to the above case. The decision will act as a precedent in all suits of discrimination due to uncredited post-PDA leave and the judgment will always be in favor of the company which did not count the post-PDA pregnancy leave period. As a result the people who took pregnancy leave before the Post-PDA period will enjoy lesser pension benefits due to unaccredited leave time. Works Cited AT & T Corporation, Petitioner v. Noreen Hulteen Et Al. SupremeCourt.gov. Supreme Court, n.d. Web. 05 Oct. 2011. Noreen Hulteen Et Al v. AT & T Et Al. Clearinghouse.net. n.p, n.d. Web. 05 Oct. 2011. Hulteen v. AT Corporation. Caselawfindlaw.com. 2011. Thomson Reuters. Web. 05 Oct. 2011. Read More