Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen

Docket No.: 07-543
Certiorari Granted: Jun 23 2008
Argued: December 10, 2008
Decided: May 18, 2009

PartyNames: AT&T Corporation v. Noreen Hulteen, et al.
Petitioner: AT&T Corporation Defendant Noreen Hulteen, et al. Heard By Roberts Court (2006-2009) Opinion 556 U.S. ___ (2009) Granted Monday, June 23, 2008 Argued Wednesday, December 10, 2008 Decided Monday, May 18, 2009
Respondent: Noreen Hulteen, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

AT&T Corporation Defendant Noreen Hulteen, et al. Heard By Roberts Court (2006-2009) Opinion 556 U.S. ___ (2009) Granted Monday, June 23, 2008 Argued Wednesday, December 10, 2008 Decided Monday, May 18, 2009
v.
Noreen Hulteen, et al.
Background:

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

Question Presented:

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.

Question:

Under the Court's decisions in Pallas and Landgraf, does a company violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying retirement benefits to women who took temporary disability leave while pregnant when the leave was taken before the PDA came into effect but the calculation of benefits took place after?

Holding: reversed
Vote: 7-2
Opinion By:
Read AT&T CORP. V. HULTEEN opinion (PDF)