Thursday, December 11, 2008
Supreme Court Heard Arguments Yesterday in AT&T v. Hulteen
NY Times: Justices Hear Bias Case on Maternity, Pensions and Timing, by Adam Liptak:
The argument of an employment discrimination case at the Supreme Court on Wednesday was full of references to one of the court’s more controversial decisions in recent years — the 2007 ruling against Lilly M. Ledbetter.
Ms. Ledbetter lost her case because she had discovered the disparity between her pay and that of her male colleagues too late.
The later effects of past discrimination, the court ruled last year in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, a 5-to-4 decision, do not restart the clock on the statute of limitations. President-elect Barack Obama has supported efforts to overturn that decision in Congress.
The case that was argued Wednesday, AT&T v. Hulteen, No. 07-543, raised broadly similar issues. Noreen Hulteen and three other women took pregnancy leaves from AT&T from 1968 to 1976. When the company calculated their pension benefits on their retirements decades later, it did not give them full credit for the leaves.