Court gives AT&T; retirees a raise
A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Friday that AT&T; Corp. must credit women retirees with work time they lost during maternity leaves taken before the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act was enacted three decades ago.
In an 11-4 decision, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of four longtime employees and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who asserted that the company’s pregnancy policies violated the women’s rights and affected the amount of pension benefits they got.
The ruling, in Hulteen vs. AT&T; Corp., reinstates a decision by U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins in San Francisco that the women were entitled to a summary judgment establishing that the company’s action in excluding time off for pregnancy when calculating pension benefits violated federal law.
Jenkins’ ruling was overturned by a three-judge panel of the court last year, but then the full court voted to rehear the case with a larger panel.
Friday’s decision illustrated a sharp ideological divide on the court. All 11 judges who favored the plaintiffs were appointed by Democratic presidents, and the four judges who voted for the company were selected by Republican presidents.
One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Judith Kurtz of San Francisco, said the ruling could affect as many as 20,000 women. However, she said it was not possible to assess damages in the case.
She cautioned that the case had to go back to Judge Jenkins to determine which women were eligible to be in the class and that this could take considerable time.
The ruling affects women who took maternity leave between 1968 and 1976.
AT&T; spokesman Walt Sharp said, “We believe the decision is inconsistent with current law and we are reviewing the decision to determine our next steps.” The company could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
Writing for the majority, 9th Circuit Judge Kim M. Wardlaw said the case raised an issue previously decided by the court “on virtually identical facts sixteen years ago.”
In that case, the court held that Pacific Bell violated Title VII of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act when it calculated retirement benefits after the effective date of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978.
In this case, AT&T; had given service credit for all pre-PDA temporary disability leaves taken by employees, except pregnancy leaves. Wardlaw said the three-judge panel that ruled against the women in March 2006, had ruled incorrectly that AT&T;, successor to Pacific Bell, and another former company had not violated federal law “by engaging in identical conduct.”
Wardlaw said the panel concluded incorrectly that the court’s 1991 decision in Pallas vs. Pacific Bell was no longer valid.
Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, writing for the dissenters, said the majority had ignored the effect of other rulings since the Pallas decision.
--
