High Court rules against working women
Published May 29, 2009 10:34 PM
On May 18, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a stunning blow to women workers,
overturned lower courts’ decisions and ruled that AT&T, the
seventh-largest corporation in the world, could exclude maternity leaves when
calculating pension benefits.
In the case of AT&T Corporation v. Hulteen, seven of the nine justices
ruled that since the plaintiffs took pregnancy leaves prior to the 1978
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the corporation was lawfully permitted to
decrease their retirement funds. They claimed the law was not retroactive.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the court, and Justice Stephen
Breyer said the court allowed AT&T to pay the plaintiffs “for the
rest of their lives, lower pension benefits than colleagues who worked for
AT&T no longer than they did.” (New York Times, May 19) They said the
PDA should have ended such discrimination.
Noreen Hulteen, Linda Porter, Eleanor Collet and Elizabeth Snyder began their
maternity leaves before 1976. Hulteen and Porter were ordered by AT&T
executives to go home two months earlier than they’d planned, when their
pregnancies became apparent.
Hulteen was hospitalized after childbirth for an unrelated medical problem and
missed 240 days of work. The company paid her for only 30 days, its maximum for
“personal” time off. They considered pregnancy leave
“personal” time then and denied her disability leave. When Hulteen
retired in 1994, AT&T excluded 210 days when determining her pension
The corporation also deducted uncredited “personal” days off for
maternity leaves when it calculated Collet’s pension in 1998 and
Snyder’s in 2000. AT&T claimed this was lawful, since the leaves were
prior to the PDA’s passage.
In 1979 AT&T made pregnancy leaves equivalent to disability leaves, but did
not make the policy retroactive prior to 1978.
The women’s movement had pushed hard for legal protection for pregnant
workers and won the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978. The law forbade
pregnancy-based discrimination. It required that maternity leave be treated
equally with other medical and disability leaves.
In 2001, the four women sued AT&T and asserted that the PDA outlawed paying
them lower pensions by deducting their pregnancy leaves. The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs, but AT&T then appealed to the
The plaintiffs and the Communication Workers of America, which represents most
of AT&T’s workers, had filed sex- and pregnancy-based discrimination
charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
New ruling legalizes discrimination
AT&T has continued to discriminate for 31 years since the PDA was enacted.
Thousands of women have faced discrimination twice, first when having to take
unpaid maternity leave prior to 1979, and then when being denied full
retirement pensions years later.
Women’s rights activists warn of the dangerous repercussions of this
decision for women workers and their families. They say it can affect thousands
of women who took pregnancy leaves years ago and now face retirement.
Marcia D. Greenberger, National Women’s Law Center co-president,
stressed: “By authorizing AT&T to treat women differently today based
on maternity leaves they took in the 1970s, the Court is allowing the
perpetuation of pregnancy discrimination in damaging and unjustifiable ways.
... This ruling erects barriers to the equal treatment of women in the
workplace and gives a green light to employers to continue penalizing female
employees who have borne children.” (nwlc.org)
Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families,
said: “The [Court] ... dealt a painful and serious blow to ... working
women and their families who rely on their retirement benefits. Its ruling [in
this case] forces women to pay a high price today because their employers
“The decision couldn’t come at a worse time,” said Ness.
“In the current economic climate, women and their families cannot afford
to see their retirement benefits kept lower by discriminatory workplace
policies that should have been remedied years ago.” (civilrights.org)
In this case, the Supreme Court has again revealed its pro-corporate bias and
demonstrated that it is not a neutral body. It found yet one more way to deny
women equal pay and benefits.
The ruling also reveals the court’s collusion with the corporations to
help them maximize profits. How much of AT&T’s $12.9 billion in
profits in 2008 and first-quarter profits of $3.13 billion this year, was made
by denying thousands of women equal pension funds due to pregnancy
discrimination? Over the decades, how much in profits did the corporation make
by denying women paid maternity leaves that they earned?
The Communication Workers union said the court’s decision means the
“end to the legal challenges brought by CWA and others.” The union
said that thousands of AT&T employees will “end up with lower
pensions and other retirement benefits than their colleagues who did not take
pregnancy-related leave,” but had equal work records.
“It is also an unfortunate ‘win’ for AT&T, whose
continued pursuit of this appeal shows us once again how little regard they
have for their employees.” (cwa-comtech.org)
The court’s ruling could endanger even more women’s retirement
benefits, a serious threat today given the economic crisis, and exacerbate the
very real impoverishment of aging women workers. Women still face wage
inequality, especially those from African-American, Latina, Asian, Arab and
Native communities, and lower Social Security payments and pensions.
Despite prohibitive legislation, the workplace is still rife with pregnancy
discrimination, which occurs frequently during and after pregnancy when women
return to work. Claims to the EEOC objecting to this practice grew 65 percent
from 1992 to 2007, filed mostly by women of color and those who work in
industries where women predominate in the work force, according to the National
Partnership for Women and Families. (infozine.com)
It is capitalism and the profit motive that underlie pregnancy-related and
pension discrimination and other sexist, anti-worker practices. This should be
exposed and opposed.
Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: [email protected]
Subscribe [email protected]
Support independent news DONATE