Supreme Court To Hear Pregnancy Discrimination Case

Main Category: Pregnancy / Obstetrics
Also Included In: Public Health;  Medical Malpractice / Litigation
Article Date: 25 Jun 2008 - 5:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case on whether ATandT employees who took pregnancy leave before 1979, prior to the effective date of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, should be eligible for the same retirement benefits as employees who took disability leave, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The case challenges an AT&T policy that resulted in lower retirement benefits for women who took pre-1979 pregnancy leave by limiting service credits available during pregnancy leave but not other types of disability leave. The women argue they should be eligible for the same retirement benefits as employees who took disability leave. The outcome of the suit could affect thousands of retirees nationwide whose employers had similar policies, according to Judith Kurtz, a lawyer for the women (Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, 6/24).

The plaintiffs each took between 67 and 261 days of uncredited maternity leave between 1968 and 1976 (AP/Google.com, 6/23). Prior to the enactment of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, AT&T, then Pacific Bell, classified maternity leave as personal leave, allowing for 30 days of coverage. Employees on disability leave at the time had unlimited coverage, the Washington Post reports. After the law went into effect, the company changed its policy, treating pregnancy leave the same as temporary disability leave. However, AT&T has maintained that it is not required to retroactively credit the time women were on maternity leave before the measure's enactment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2007 ruled that pregnancy leave taken before the act was in effect must be treated the same as disability leave (Twarowski, Washington Post, 6/24). The appeals court said that it was not ruling on the legality of the company's pre-1979 benefits, but rather looking only at its post-1979 decision to pay lesser pensions to employees who took pregnancy leave before enactment of the law. The company "continues to operate its (retirement) system in a discriminatory fashion," the court said.

Appeal to Supreme Court

The Department of Justice urged the Supreme Court to review the case, saying that AT&T's pre-1979 policy was legal at the time and can be lawfully reflected in its post-1979 pensions. Government lawyers also have said that women affected by the policy should have sued shortly after the discrimination act went into effect.

Lawyers for AT&T in its appeal to the Supreme Court said that other appellate courts have reached the opposite conclusion than that of the 9th Circuit Court when considering similar benefit systems. AT&T urged the high court to declare a uniform national standard, writing that it is "fundamentally unfair to employers and employees for the same national benefits plan to result in different benefits solely as a function of geography" (San Francisco Chronicle, 6/24).

Kurtz said the case represents "the second generation of pregnancy discrimination," adding, "Women who were discriminated against back in the '70s are being discriminated against again." She also said, "We're hopeful. We are litigating the issue 25 years ago. We thought that we were right then, and we think that we're right now" (Washington Post, 6/24).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.