Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- PART I WHAT IS SEX DISCRIMINATION?
- PART II SEXUAL HARASSMENT
- PART III PREGNANT WOMEN AND MOTHERS AT WORK
- 31 Pregnant Truckers and the Problem of Light-Duty Assignments
- 32 A Big Win for Pregnant Police Officers
- 33 Undue Burden
- 34 Hard Labor: New Pregnancy Discrimination Guidance from the EEOC
- 35 Forceps Delivery: The Supreme Court Narrowly Saves the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in Young vs. UPS
- 36 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act Reaches Advanced Maternal Age
- 37 The Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act: A Time for Change?
- 38 The Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Once-Pregnant Retirees
- 39 If She Does Not Win It Is a Shame
- 40 Must Employers Who Cover Prescriptions Cover Contraception?
- 41 Fertile Ground for Discrimination
- 42 Can a Woman Be Fired for Absenteeism Related to Fertility Treatments?
- 43 Is Lactation Related to Pregnancy?
- 44 A Victory for Families, but Hardly a Panacea
- 45 A Small Step in the Right Direction: The Family and Medical Leave Act at Twenty
- 46 “Best Practices” to Promote Work-Family Balance
- PART IV FEMALE BREADWINNERS AND THE GLASS CEILING
- Conclusion
- Notes
- Index
38 - The Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Once-Pregnant Retirees
from PART III - PREGNANT WOMEN AND MOTHERS AT WORK
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2016
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- PART I WHAT IS SEX DISCRIMINATION?
- PART II SEXUAL HARASSMENT
- PART III PREGNANT WOMEN AND MOTHERS AT WORK
- 31 Pregnant Truckers and the Problem of Light-Duty Assignments
- 32 A Big Win for Pregnant Police Officers
- 33 Undue Burden
- 34 Hard Labor: New Pregnancy Discrimination Guidance from the EEOC
- 35 Forceps Delivery: The Supreme Court Narrowly Saves the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in Young vs. UPS
- 36 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act Reaches Advanced Maternal Age
- 37 The Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act: A Time for Change?
- 38 The Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Once-Pregnant Retirees
- 39 If She Does Not Win It Is a Shame
- 40 Must Employers Who Cover Prescriptions Cover Contraception?
- 41 Fertile Ground for Discrimination
- 42 Can a Woman Be Fired for Absenteeism Related to Fertility Treatments?
- 43 Is Lactation Related to Pregnancy?
- 44 A Victory for Families, but Hardly a Panacea
- 45 A Small Step in the Right Direction: The Family and Medical Leave Act at Twenty
- 46 “Best Practices” to Promote Work-Family Balance
- PART IV FEMALE BREADWINNERS AND THE GLASS CEILING
- Conclusion
- Notes
- Index
Summary
Is it permissible to penalize retiring women for pregnancy-related disability leaves that they took before the law required employers to treat such leaves like all other disability leaves? In its 7–2 ruling in AT&T v. Hulteen, the Supreme Court said yes, leaving in place a disturbing relic of a discriminatory past with real present-day consequences.
PREGNANCY AND PENSIONS AT AT&T
Hulteen involves a group of female employees who took unpaid leaves for disability related to pregnancy between 1968 and 1974. Pursuant to AT&T's policies in place at the time, an employee who took “disability” leave from work received full service credit (that is, credit for having worked for the full period during which he or she was disabled), no matter how long the leave. In contrast, an employee who took leave related to pregnancy – even if she was temporarily disabled by the pregnancy – could receive service credit for no more than thirty days. (An uncredited leave resulted in the employee's “start date” at AT&T being adjusted forward to the extent of the leave.) In 1977, the company adopted a new policy, which entitled employees with pregnancy-related disability to receive both benefits and service credit for six weeks, but neither benefits nor credit thereafter. Again, employees who took other disability leaves were entitled to full service credit.
Like many other companies, AT&T amended its leave policy in 1979 to comply with the newly enacted Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). Prior to the PDA's enactment, the Supreme Court had ruled, in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, that Title VII's ban on sex discrimination in employment did not include pregnancy discrimination. It was perfectly legal for an employer to treat employees differently because of pregnancy. Gilbert, though, was overruled by the PDA, giving pregnant employees, among other things, the right to be treated the same as comparably disabled employees with respect to all benefits, including seniority calculations.
Thus, AT&T could no longer grant less credit and fewer benefits to workers who took pregnancy-related disability leave than it did to those who took leave for other types of disability without violating federal law (although it could freely deny leave to both).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Nine to FiveHow Gender, Sex, and Sexuality Continue to Define the American Workplace, pp. 225 - 229Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016