Global telecommunication corporation AT&T’s pension policy before 1978 was a seniority system, which was achieved through years of service, but women were precluded from gaining as much seniority as their male counterparts because of the time they took on pregnancy leave.
In 1978 Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and AT&T complied with this new ruling, and adjusted their pension policy accordingly.
After this law came into effect, the question arose as to whether women who already retired would benefit from this new calculation.
Today, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court decided the Title VII, which prevents pregnancy discrimination, does not require AT&T to recalculate the pensions, so AT&T was within its rights to not retroactively pay employees for their loss of pay.
Justice David Souter wrote the majority opinion, and in regard to Title VII, “There is no such clear intent here, indeed, no indication at all that Congress had retroactive application in mind, the evidence points the other way.”
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens dissented. Ginsberg wrote that “AT&T committed a current violation of Title VII when it did not totally discontinue reliance upon a pension calculation premised on the notion that pregnancy-based classification display no gender bias.”
SCOTUS: Pregnancy Payment Not Retroactive
Global telecommunication corporation AT&T’s pension policy before 1978 was a seniority system, which was achieved through years of service, but women were precluded from gaining as much seniority as their male counterparts because of the time they took on pregnancy leave.
In 1978 Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and AT&T complied with this new ruling, and adjusted their pension policy accordingly.
After this law came into effect, the question arose as to whether women who already retired would benefit from this new calculation.
Today, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court decided the Title VII, which prevents pregnancy discrimination, does not require AT&T to recalculate the pensions, so AT&T was within its rights to not retroactively pay employees for their loss of pay.
Justice David Souter wrote the majority opinion, and in regard to Title VII, “There is no such clear intent here, indeed, no indication at all that Congress had retroactive application in mind, the evidence points the other way.”
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens dissented. Ginsberg wrote that “AT&T committed a current violation of Title VII when it did not totally discontinue reliance upon a pension calculation premised on the notion that pregnancy-based classification display no gender bias.”