Correspondence from Pamela Karlan to Kathleen Bell, Esq. Re Whitfield v. Clinton
Correspondence
July 14, 1987

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. Brief for Petitioners, 1988. e75ed4a3-bb9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/ef8ce46c-e6d2-410b-88c8-660896f6968d/lorance-v-att-technologies-inc-brief-for-petitioners. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
No. 87-1428 In T h e Supreme Court of tt)e Hmteti i§>tate£ Oc t o b e r T e r m , 1988 PATRICIA A, LORANCE, JANICE M. KING, and CAROL S. BUESCHEN, Petitioners, v. AT&T TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and LOCAL 1942, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS JULIUS LeVONNE CHAMBERS NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Sixteenth Floor New York, New York 10013 BARRY GOLDSTEIN* PAUL HOLTZMAN NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 1275 K Street, N.W. Suite 301 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 682-1300 BRIDGET ARIMOND 14 West Erie Street Chicago, Illinois 60610 Attorneys for Petitioners Patricia A. Lorance, et al. *Counsel of Record PRESS OF BYRON S. ADAMS, WASHINGTON, D.C. (202) 347-8203 QUESTION PRESENTED A re a d m i n i s t r a t i v e charges f i l e d by f e m a le w o r k e r s un de r T i t l e V I I o f the C i v i l R igh ts Act o f 1964 t im e ly when f i l e d w i t h i n 300 d a y s o f t h e i r d em ot ion to l o w e r -p a y in g j o b s caused by the o p e ra t io n o f a d i s c r im in a t o r y s e n i o r i t y system that was d e s i g n e d to a d v a n t a g e male workers over female workers? 'ABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED .......................... i TA3LE OF C O N T E N T S ..................... i i TABLE OF AUTHORIT IES ............... i i i CITATIONS TO OPINIONS BELOW . . 1 JURISDICTION ........................................ 2 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED . 3 STATEMENT OF THE C A S E ............. 4 SUMMARY OF A R G U M E N T ................ 21 ARGUMENT.......................................... 2 5 FEMALE WORKERS MAY FILE A TIMELY TITLE V I I CHARGE WITHIN 300 DAYS OF THEIR JOB DEMOTION DUE TO THE OPERATION OF A DISCRIMINATORY SENIORITY SYSTEM DESIGNED TO ADVANTAGE MALE WORKERS OVER FEMALE WORKERS ................................... 25 A. The C o u r t ' s D e c i s io n s Make C le a r That a Worker Harmed by the O perat ion o f a D is c r im in a to ry S e n io r i t y System I s Perm itted to F i l e a Charge W ith in 300 Days o f that Harm■ 25 3. The E f f e c t i v e and E f f i c i e n t Implementation o f T i t l e V I I R equ ires that a Worker Be Perm itted To F i l e a Timely Charge from the Date the Worker I s Harmed by the O perat ion o f a D i s c r im in a to ry S e n io r i t y System . . CONCLUSION iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES C a s e s : Pages Abrams v . B ay lo r C o l l e g e o f Medic ine , 805 F .2d 528 (5th C i r . 1986) ................................... 4 7 A lbem ar le Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U .S . 405 (1975) 59, 60 A lexander v. Gardner -Denver Co . , 415 U .S . 36 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ...................... 53 American Tobacco Co. v. P a t t e r s o n , 456 U .S . 63 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ................ 37 Bazemore v. F r id a y , 478 U .S . 385 ( 1986) 22, 26, 27, 40 Bruno v. Western E l e c t r i c Co . , 829 F .2d 957 ( 10th C i r . 1987) ................................................ 4 5 C a l i f o r n i a Brewers A s s o c i a t i o n v. Bryant , 444 U .S . 598 (1980) . 37 Connect icut v. T ea l , 457 U .S . 440 ( 1 9 8 2 ) .................................. 59 Cook v. Pan American World A i r ways, I n c . , 771 F .2d 635 (2d C i r . 1985), c e r t . d e n i e d , 474 U .S . 1109 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ............ 45 Corning G la s s Works v . Brennan, 417 U .S . 188 (1974) ......... 63 Delaware S ta te C o l l e g e v. R icks , 449 U .S . 250 (1980) 42 , 52 V Cases EEOC v. Westinghau.se E l e c t r i c C orp . , 725 F .2d 211 (3d C i r . 1983), c e r t . d e n i e d , 469 U . S . 820 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ........................................ 47, 52 Franks v. Bowman T ra n sp o r ta t io n Co . , 424 U .S . 747 (1976) . . . 42, 59 Furr v. AT&T Tech n o log ie s , I n c . , 824 F .2d 1537 (10th C i r . 1987) 4 7 G r ig g s v . Duke Power Co . , 401 U . S. 424 (1971) 31, 55 Hanover Shoe v . Un ited Shoe Machinery, I n c . , 392 U .S . 481 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ................................................ 63 Havens R ea l ty Corp. v . Coleman, 455 U .S . 363 (1982) 62 I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s 'n . o f M ach in is ts V . NLRB, 362 U .S . 411 (1960) . 64 Johnson v. Genera l E l e c t r i c , 840 F .2d 132 (1 s t C i r . 1988) . 46, 48, 53 Johnson v. Ra i lway Express Agency, 421 U .S . 454 (1975) . 59 Lewis v. Loca l Union No. 100 o f L a b o re r s ' I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 750 F .2d 1368 (7th C i r . 1984) . . 66 Love v . Pullman C o rp . , 404 U .S . 522 (1972) ................................... 68 v: Morelock v. NCR C o rp . , 586 F .2d 1096 ( 6 th C l r . 1978), c e r t . d e n i e d , 441 U .S . 906 (1979) Cases N a s h v i l l e Gas Co. v. S a t ty , 434 U.S . 136 (1977) ........................... Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S . 750 (1979) ........................... P a t t e r s o n v . American Tobacco Co. , 634 F .2d 744 (4 th C i r . 1980), v aca ted on o ther g ro u n d s , 456 U .S . 63 (1982) Pu l lm an -Standard Co. v . Swint, 456 U .S . 273 (1982) .................. Satz v . ITT F in a n c i a l C o rp . , 619 F .2d 738 ( 8 th C i r . 1980) . Sevako v . Anchor Motor F r e i g h t , I n c . , 792 F .2d 570 ( 6 th C i r . 1986) ................................................. S t o l l e r v. Marsh, 682 F .2d 971 (D. C. C i r . 1982), c e r t . d e n ie d , 460 U .S . 1037 (1983) . T a y lo r v . Home Insurance Company, 777 F .2d 849 (4 th C i r . 1985), c e r t . d e n i e d , 476 U .S . 1142 (1986) ................................................ Teamsters v . Un ited S t a t e s , 431 U.S . 324 (1977) ........................... 45 38 46 46 36, 41 47 66 47 47, 61 32-36, 59 Page v i a Cases Trans World A i r l i n e s , Inc . v. Hard ison , 432 U .S . 63 (1977) . United A i r L in e s , Inc . v. Evans, 431 U .S . 553 (1977) .................. W i l l i a m s v. O w e n s - I l l i n o i s , I n c . , 665 F .2d 918 (9 th C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n ie d , 459 U .S . 971 (1982) Z en ith Radio Corp. v. H a z e i t in e Research, 401 U .S . 321 (1971) Z ip es v. Trans World A i r l i n e s , I n c . , 455 U .S . 385 (1982) . . S t a t u t e s : Age D i s c r im in a t io n in Employment Act o f 1967, 29 U .S .C . §§ 621 et s e q .................................................. Equal Employment Opportunity Act o f ' 1972, P . l ". 92-261, 86 S ta t . 103 ....................................... F a i r Housing Act o f 1968, 42 U .S .C . §§ 3601 et seq . . . N a t io n a l Labor R e la t io n s Act , § 1 0 ( b ) , 29 U .S .C . § 160(b) T i t l e V I I o f the C i v i l R ights Act o f 1964, 42 U .S .C . §§ 2000e e t s e q ............................... 37 17 , 40 42 47 63 25, 45 68 45-46 57 , 68 24 , 61 65 Passim La ge 28 U .S .C § 1254(1) 3 v a n L e g i s l a t i v e A u t h o r i t i e s : 118 Cong. R ec . (1972) Subcommittee on Labor o f the Senate Committee on Labor and P u b l i c W e l f a r e , L e g i s l a t i ve H i s t o r y o f the Equal Employment Opportun ity Act o f 1972 ( GPO 1972) . . 58-59, 68 58, 59, 68 Other A u t h o r i t i e s : Bureau o f N a t io n a l A f f a i r s , EEOC Compliance Manual . . . . 48 Genera l Accounting O f f i c e , Equal Employment Opportun ity - EEOC and S ta te Agenc ies Did Not F u l l y I n v e s t i g a t e D i s c r im in a t o ry Charges (1988) .................. 49 Jackson and Matheson, The Con t i n u in g V i o l a t i o n Theory and the Concept o f J u r i s d i c t i o n in T i t l e V I I S u i t s , 67 Geo. L. J. 811 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ........................................ 56 Laycock , Cont inu ing V i o l a t i o n s , D isp a r a t e Treatment in Compen s a t i o n , and o the r T i t l e V I I I s s u e s , 49 Law and Contemn. Probs . 53 (1986) .......................... 64 No. 87-1428 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1988 PATRICIA A. LORANCE, JANICE M. KING, and CAROL S. BUESCHEN, P e t i t i o n e r s , v . AT&T TECHNOLOGIES, IN C . , and LOCAL 1942, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Respondents . ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS CITATIONS TO OPINIONS BELOW The op in ion o f the cour t o f ap pea ls i s r e p o r t ed a t 827 F .2a 163 and i s s e t out in the Appendix to the P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t 2 of C e r t i o r a r i ( P e t . App . ) a t pages 3 a - l l a . The o rd e r denying r e h e a r in g , which i s not r e p o r t e d , i s s e t out at P e t . Apo . l a - 2 a . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s memorandum o p in io n i s u n r e o o r t e d and i s s e t out at P e t . App. 12a-33a. The Report and Recommendation o f the Un ited S t a te s M a g i s t r a t e i s un reported and i s s e t out a t P e t . App. 34a-50a. JURISDICTION The judgment o f the court o f ap p e a ls was en te red on August 19, 1987. The court o f a n n e a l s e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y in g a t i m e l y p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g a n d s u g g e s t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g en b a n c on O c t o b e r 30, 1987. On January 19, 1988, J u s t i c e John Paul Stevens s ign ed an Order e x t e n d i n g t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i u n t i l F e b r u a r y 27, 1988. The P e t i t i o n f o r a W rit o f C e r t i o r a r i was f i l e d on February 26, 1983, and was g ran ted on October 11, 3 1988. The j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the Court i s invoked under 28 U. S . C. § 1254( 1) . STATUTORY PROVIS I ONS INVOLVED Sec t ion 703 o f T i t l e V I I o f the 1964 C i v i l R i g h t s Ac t , 42 U . S . C . § 2000e-2, p rov id e s in p e r t in e n t p a r t : ( a ) I t s h a l l b e a n u n l a w f u l employment p r a c t i c e f o r an employer - ( 1 ) to f a i l o r r e f u s e to h i r e . . . o r o t h e r w i s e to d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t any i n d i v i d u a l w ith r e sp ec t to h i s c o m p e n s a t io n , t e rm s , c o n d i t i o n s , o r p r i v i l e g e s o f employment, because o f s u c h i n d i v i d u a l ' s r a c e , c o l o r , r e l i g i o n , s e x , o r n a t i o n a l o r i g i n , or ( 2 ) to l i m i t , s e g r e g a t e , or c l a s s i f y h i s employees . . . i n any way w h i c h w o u l d d e p r iv e or tend to d e p r iv e a n y i n d i v i d u a l o f e m p lo y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s o r o t h e r w i s e a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t h i s s t a t u s a s an em p lo y ee , b ecause o f such i n d i v i d u a l ' s r a c e , c o l o r , r e l i g i o n , sex , or n a t io n a l o r i g i n . . . . ( c ) I t s h a l l b e a n u n l a w f u l e mp l o y me n t p r a c t i c e f o r a l a b o r o rg a n iz a t i o n - 4 ( 2 ) t o l i m i t , s e g r e g a t e , or c l a s s i f y i t s membership . . . in any way which would d e p r iv e or tend to d e p r i v e any i n d i v i d u a l o f employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s , or w o u l d l i m i t s u c h em p lo y m en t o p p o r t u n i t i e s o r o t h e r w i s e a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t h i s s t a t u s as an employee . . , because o f such i n d i v i d u a l ' s r a c e , c o l o r , r e l i g i o n , s e x o r n a t i o n a l o r i g i n . . . . ( h) N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g a n y o t h e r p r o v i s i o n o f t h i s s u b c h a p t e r , i t s h a l l not be an u n law fu l employment p r a c t i c e f o r an em p lo y e r to a p p l y d i f f e r e n t s tan dards o f compensation, o r d i f f e r e n t t e rm s , c o n d i t i o n s o r p r i v i l e g e s o f employment pursuant to a bona f i d e s e n i o r i t y o r m er it system . . . p r o v i d e d t h a t such d i f f e r e n c e s a re not the r e s u l t o f an i n t e n t i o n to d i s c r im in a t e because o f r a c e , c o l o r , r e l i g i o n , sex , or n a t i o n a l o r i g i n . . . . S e c t i o n 7 0 6 ( e ) o f T i t l e V I I o f the 1964 C i v i l R igh ts Act , 42 U. S . C. § 2000e- 5 ( e ) , p ro v id e s in p e r t in e n t p a r t : A c h a r g e u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l b e f i l e d w i t h i n o n e hundred and e i g h t y d ay s a f t e r the a l l e g e d u n law fu l employment p r a c t i c e o c c u r r e d . . . , e x c e p t that in the case o f an u n law fu l employment p r a c t i c e w i th r e sp ec t to w h ich th e p e r s o n a g g r i e v e d h a s i n i t i a l l y i n s t i t u t e d 5 p r o c e e d i n g s w i t h a S t a t e or l o c a l a g e n c y . . . , such charge s h a l l be f i l e d . . . w i t h in th ree hu ndred days a f t e r the a l l e g e d u n l a w f u l em p loym ent p r a c t i c e o c c u r r e d . . . . STATEMENT OF THE CASE P l a i n t i f f s Lorance, King and Bueschen b r o u g h t t h i s T i t l e V I I a c t i o n c l a im in g th a t d e f e n d a n t s AT&T T e c h n o lo g ie s , Inc . ( AT&T o r C o m p a n y ) a n d L o c a l 1 942, I n t e r n a t i o n a l B r o t h e r h o o d o f E l e c t r i c a l W o r k e r s , AFL -C IO ( L o c a l 1942 o r Union) d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t them on the b a s i s o f t h e i r gender when the p l a i n t i f f s were demoted by the o p e ra t io n o f an u n law fu l s e n i o r i t y system d i s c r i m i n a t o r i l y des igned to l i m i t the job r i g h t s o f female workers w h o h a d r e c e n t l y p r o m o t e d i n t o t r a d i t i o n a l l y male j o b s . The lower cou r ts f a i l e d to dec id e these c la ims because the cour ts determined that the p l a i n t i f f s d id not f i l e t i m e l y c h a r g e s w i t h the Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission s in c e 6 the charges were not f i l e d w i t h in 300 days from the da te that the p l a i n t i f f s became s u b j e c t to the i l l e g a l s e n i o r i t y system. The p l a i n t i f f s a rgue that female workers may f i l e t im e ly T i t l e V I I charges w i t h in 3 0 0 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e t h a t t h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r i l y d e s igned s e n i o r i t y system was o p e r a t e d to demote them to l o w e r - pay ing jo b s w h i l e male workers w i th l e s s s e n i o r i t y i n the p la n t were r e t a in e d in h i g h e r -p a y in g j o b s . * * * * * 1. P l a i n t i f f s P a t r i c i a L o r a n c e , Jan ice King and C a ro l Bueschen have been em p loyed f o r many y e a r s i n h o u r l y wage p o s i t i o n s in the Montgomery Works f a c i l i t y o f AT&T in A urora , I l l i n o i s . Lorance and Bueschen have worked as h o u r ly employees s in c e 1970 and King s in c e 1971. P e t . App . 4 a . L o r a n c e , K i n g and B u e s c h e n a r e members o f Loca l 1942. I b i d . 7 The h o u r l y p a i d j o b s in the M ontgom ery Works a r e d i v i d e d i n t o j o b g rade s 32 through 39 . 1 The hig h e r the job g rade , the g r e a t e r the wage r a t e pa id to w o rk e r s in the job . Jo in t App . 18, 32 . Among the h i g h e s t - p a y in g h o u r ly job s i s a ca tego ry o f j o b s c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d to as the " t e s t e r u n i v e r s e . " Pe t . App . 4a. Most o f the h ou r ly wage jo b s in the Montgomery Works a r e in the l o w e r - p a y i n g j o b g r a d e s a n d h a v e b e e n t r a d i t i o n a l l y o c c u p i e d by women. Pe t . App. 15a. But the h i g h e r -p a y in g t e s t e r p o s i t i o n s have been t r a d i t i o n a l l y v iewed as men ' s j o b s . These t e s t e r job s have 1 T h e re a r e f o u r o t h e r types o f j o b s i n t h e M o n tg o m e r y W o r k s : ( a ) u n g r a d e d m a n a g e m e n t p e r s o n n e l ; ( b ) s a l a r i e d p e r s o n n e l whose p o s i t i o n s a r e g r a d e d ; ( c ) s a l a r i e d p e r s o n n e l who a re r e p re sen ted by a un ion; (d ) employees in the journeyman t rad e s occupa t ions . This l a w s u i t d oe s not c o n c e rn em p loyees in t h e s e p o s i t i o n s o r t h e s e l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s f o r t h e s e p o s i t i o n s . Jo in t App. 18, 32. 8 b e e n f i l l e d e i t h e r by p r o m o t i n g t h e r e l a t i v e l y f ew men in th e l o w e r - g r a d e d j o b s o r by h i r i n g men d i r e c t l y in to the t e s t e r j o b s . I b i d . "A lthough [ th e t e s t e r ] p o s i t i o n s t r a d i t i o n a l l y had been f i l l e d by men, by 1978 an i n c r e a s i n g number o f women had used t h e i r p l a n t -w id e s e n i o r i t y to o b t a in j o b s as t e s t e r s . " P e t . App. 4a. U n t i l 1979 t h e s t a n d a r d o f p l a n t s e n i o r i t y g o v e r n e d j o b p r o m o t i o n s a n d j o b r e d u c t i o n s - i n - f o r c e w i t h in the j o b - g r a d e d h ou r ly p o s i t i o n s . Given r e l a t i v e l y equa l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s the employee who had been em ployed f o r th e l o n g e s t p e r i o d w i t h in M o n tg o m e r y Wo r k s w o u l d be t h e f i r s t o promoted and the l a s t demoted. O At l e a s t s in c e 1960 c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a in in g agreements between the Company and U n ion p r o v i d e d t h a t p ro m o t io n s and d e m o t i o n s w i t h i n t h e g r a d e d h o u r l y p o s i t i o n w o u l d be g o v e r n e d by p l a n t s e n i o r i t y . Jo in t App. 20, 33, 41. 9 In l a t e 1978 or e a r l y 1979 the U n ion i n i t i a t e d d i s c u s s io n s w ith AT&T to change the s e n i o r i t y system, which up to t h a t t ime w ou ld have p e r m i t t e d f e m a le w o r k e r s to u se t h e i r p la n t s e n i o r i t y to promote from one job to another w i t h in the " t e s t e r u n iv e r s e " and to remain in t e s t e r j o b s i f th e re were a r e d u c t i o n - i n - f o r c e . The U n ion and th e Company d e v e l o p e d a p r o p o s a l , known as the " t e s t e r c o n c e p t . " The p ro p o sa l p rov id ed that a f t e r a worker b eca m e a t e s t e r , j o b p r o m o t i o n s and demotions were to be based upon the l en g th o f time that the worker had been a t e s t e r ( " t e s t e r s e n i o r i t y " ) , r a th e r than on the leng th o f time a worker had been employed at Montgomery Works. Pe t . App. 4a. The p r o p o s e d " t e s t e r c o n c e p t " was " h e a t e d l y d e b a t e d i n s e v e r a l union 10 m e e t i n g s " 3 bu t "was p a s s e d on June 28, 1979 b y a h a n d v o t e o f , 90 t o 60 , r e f l e c t i n g the approximate p ro p o r t io n s o f men and women in a t t e n d a n c e . " Pet . App . 1 6 a —17a ; P e t . App. 5 a . 4 On J u l y 23, 1979, the U n ion and Company s i g n e d an ag reem en t a d o p t i n g th e t e s t e r c o n c e p t , Pe t . App. 5a, J o in t App. 50-56, which was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o th e m a s te r c o n t r a c t b e tw een AT&T and L o c a l 1942 in August , 1980. P e t . App. 17a. T h e t e s t e r c o n c e n t o r o v i s i o n F o r e x a m p l e , Ms . L o r a n c e t e s t i f i e d that a t a un ion meeting " i t was mentioned that women were coming in w i th s e n i o r i t y and p a s s in g the men up and they w e r e t i r e d o f i t . " D e p . o f L o r a n c e , March 19, 1984, a t 103. The c o u r t o f a p p e a l s d e c i s i o n e r r o n e o u s l y s t a t e d t h e d a t e o f the m e e t in g a s June 28, 1978, Pe t . App. 5a, but the c o r r e c t date i s June 28, 1979, as s e t f o r t h in the d i s t r i c t cour t op in ion . Pe t . App. 16a; s e e , Jo in t App. 56. 11 e s t a b l i s h e d a d u a l s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m - whereby jo b promotion and demotion w i t h in th e t e s t e r u n i v e r s e was g o v e r n e d by a w o r k e r ' s i n i t i a l da te o f assignment to a j o b i n th e t e s t e r u n i v e r s e , w h i l e the w o r k e r ' s i n i t i a l d a t e o f h i r e i n t o M o n tg o m e r y W o rk s g o v e r n e d a l l o t h e r m a t t e r s . P e t . A p p . 16a. However, the f o r f e i t u r e o f p l a n t s e n i o r i t y f o r j o b promotions or demotions w i t h in the t e s t e r * 2 The p e r t i n e n t s e c t i o n s o f the ag reem en t a re as f o l l o w s : " ( 1 ) TERM OF EMPLOYMENT o f employees in the program, f o r movement o f personne l purposes , except l a y o f f , s h a l l be d e f in e d as the date o f e n t r y i n t o the t e s t e r u n i v e r s e ; s h a l l in c lu d e s e r v i c e in the u n iv e r se p r i o r to the e f f e c t i v e date o f t h i s A g r e e m e n t . . . . (2 ) TERM OF EMPLOYMENT o f employees in the program f o r l a y o f f and a l l o the r purposes s h a l l be a s computed un de r the BENEFIT PLAN." Jo in t App. 51. Under th e b e n e f i t p lan the term o f employment i s computed on the b a s i s o f l en g th o f s e r v i c e in the f a c i l i t y . 12 u n iv e r s e was l im i t e d to f i v e y e a r s .® At th e t ime the Company and Union s i g n e d t h e t e s t e r c o n c e p t a g r e e m e n t , p e t i t i o n e r L o r a n c e was a t e s t e r . I n F e b r u a r y 1980 p e t i t i o n e r K in g , and i n November 1980 p e t i t i o n e r Bueschen, were promoted to t e s t e r p o s i t i o n s . Pe t . App. 5a. In summer 1982 the p e t i t i o n e r s were demoted f o r the f i r s t time pursuant to the d u a l s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m . S i n c e t h e p e t i t i o n e r s had not worked as t e s t e r s f o r f i v e o r more y e a r s th e y w e re demoted d ur in g a r e d u c t ion in f o r c e on the b a s i s o f t h e i r " t e s t e r s e n i o r i t y " r a th e r than The p e r t i n e n t s e c t i o n o f the agreement p ro v id e s that " [ a j f t e r an employee c o m p l e t e s f i v e ( 5 ) y e a r s s e r v i c e in the t e s t e r u n i v e r s e , h i s / h e r T E RM OF EMPLOYMENT f o r a l l p u r p o s e s s h a l l be as c o m p u t e d u n d e r t h e BENEFIT PLAN." Jo in t App. 52. 13 t h e i r " p l a n t s e n i o r i t y . " Lorance and King w e r e d e m o te d to l o w e r - p a y i n g t e s t e r p o s i t i o n s and 3ueschen was demoted to a n o n - t e s t e r p o s i t i o n . I b i d . The p e t i t i o n e r s and o the r female workers were demoted to lower pay ing job s even though male workers w ith l e s s p la n t s e n i o r i t y w ere r e t a i n e d in the h i g h e r p a y i n g p o s i t i o n s . I f the t r a d i t i o n a l p l a n t s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m had a p p l i e d , p e t i t i o n e r s L o r a n c e , K ing and Bueschen w ou ld not have been demoted. Pe t . App . 5 a . 2. W i t h i n 300 d ay s o f t h e i r j o b d e m o t i o n s , ^ L o r a n c e , B ueschen and King f i l e d c h a r g e s w i t h the Equal Employment P e t i t i o n e r King was downgraded on August 23, 1982, p e t i t i o n e r Lorance on November 15, 1982, and p e t i t i o n e r Bueschen on November 15, 1982, and J a n u a ry 23, 1 9 8 4 . P e t . App . 17a . L o r a n c e and Bueschen f i l e d t h e i r EEOC charges on A p r i l 13, and King f i l e d her charge on A p r i l 21, 1983. Pe t . App. 5a. 14 Opportun ity Commission c la im in g that they w ere demoted because o f t h e i r gender in v i o l a t i o n o f T i t l e V I I o f the C i v i l R igh ts Act o f 1964. 3. As r e q u i r e d by T i t l e V I I , 8 9 on September 20, 1983, w i t h in 90 days o f the is suance to the p e t i t i o n e r s o f a N o t ic e o f Right to Sue announcing the c o n c lu s ion o f th e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y 's p ro c e s s , the p e t i t i o n e r s f i l e d a p ro se c o m p la i n t . P e t . A p p . 1 8 a . S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e p e t i t i o n e r s r e t a in e d counse l and f i l e d an amended complaint pursuant to T i t l e V I I o f the C i v i l R igh ts Act o f 1964, 42 U. S . C. §§ 2000e et seq . , a l l e g i n g that AT&T and L o c a l 1942 had d i s c r im in a t e d a g a in s t the p e t i t i o n e r s and o the r female w o rk e rs 8 by 8 S e c t i o n 7 0 6 ( f ) , 42 U . S . C . § 2000e -5 ( f ) . 9 The p e t i t i o n e r s brought a c l a s s a c t i o n bu t t he d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d summary judgment w ithout c o n s id e r in g the ( c o n t in u e d . . . ) 15 c o n s p i r i n g to change the s e n i o r i t y r u l e s " i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t i n c u m b e n t ma l e t e s t e r s and t o d i s c o u r a g e women f rom p r o m o t i n g i n t o the t r a d i t i o n a l l y - m a i e t e s t e r j o b s , " and that " [ t ) h e purpose and t h e e f f e c t o f t h i s m a n i p u l a t i o n o f s e n i o r i t y r u l e s " were to advantage male over female workers . Jo in t App . 20-22. The d i s t r i c t court g ran ted the Com pany 's m ot ion f o r summary judgment9 1 0 because i t deemed that the p e t i t i o n e r s had f a i l e d t o f i l e t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c h a r g e s w i t h t h e EEOC w i t h i n t h e a p p l i c a b l e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r io d e s t a b l i s h e d by s e c t i o n 706( e ) o f T i t l e V I I , 42 U. S . C. 9 ( . . . cont inued ) i s su e o f c l a s s c e r t i f i c a t i o n . Pe t . App. 6a n . 1 . 1 0 Even though Loca l 1942 f a i l e d to f i l e a motion f o r summary judgment, the d i s t r i c t cour t sua sponte entered judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e U n i o n b e c a u s e th e Company's "motion i s e q u a l l y e f f e c t i v e in b a r r i n g the c l a i m a g a i n s t " the U n ion . Pet . App. 33a n. 7 . 16 § 2000e - 5 ( e ). , 11 The court ru le d that the t ime o e r i o d commences to run from " the d a t e [ t h e p l a i n t i f f s ] w e re f o r c e d to 1 1 S e c t i o n 706 ( e ) e s t a b l i s h e s two time p e r i o d s . The s e c t i o n p ro v id e s that a charge " s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h in one hundred and e i g h ty days a f t e r the a l l e g e d u n law fu l employment p r a c t i c e o ccu r red " except where t h e c h a r g i n g p e r s o n " h a s i n i t i a l l y i n s t i t u t e d p r o c e e d i n g s w i t h a s t a t e or l o c a l agency" the charge " s h a l l be f i l e d . . . w i t h i n t h r e e hundred days a f t e r the a l l e g e d u n l a w f u l e mp l o y me n t p r a c t i c e o c c u r r e d . . . . " The C o u r t o f A p p e a l s n o t e d t h a t " c la im s brought in I l l i n o i s a r e g e n e r a l l y s u b j e c t to a 300-dav p e r i o d o f l i m i t a t i o n ” b e c a u s e " I l l i n o i s h a s a s t a t e [ f a i r e m p lo y m en t p r a c t i c e s ] a g e n c y to w h ich employment c o m p la i n t s may be r e f e r r e d . " Pe t . App. 6a , n . 2 . W h i le AT&T argued that T i t l e V I I ' s 1 8 0 -d a y l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d a p p l i e s r a t h e r t h a n i t s 3 0 0 - d a y l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d , the lower cou r ts d id not addres s that i s s u e because under the a n a l y s i s o f t h e l o w e r c o u r t s t h e p e t i t i o n e r s ' c h a r g e s w e r e u n t i m e l y r e g a r d l e s s o f which p e r i o d a p p l i e d . Pe t . App. 6a n . 2 , 19a-20a n. 3. S i n c e L o r a n c e and Bueschen f i l e d charges on A p r i l 13, 1983, w i t h in 180 days o f t h e i r demotions on November 15, 1982, t h e i r c h a r g e s were t im e ly f i l e d even i f the 1 8 0 -d a y l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d a p p l i e s . S e e , n . 7, s u p r a . 17 s a c r i f i c e t h e i r p l a n t s e n i o r i t y r i g h t s un de r th e ' T e s t e r C o n c e p t . ' " Pe t . App. 32a. S ince Lorance was a t e s t e r when the s e n i o r i t y system was changed in 1979 and s in c e Bueschen and King became t e s t e r s in 1980, t h e i r f i l i n g o f EEOC c h a r g e s in A p r i l 1 9 8 3 e x c e e d e d t h e 3 0 0 - d a y l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d . P e t . App. 32a-33a n . 6. A l t h o u g h n o t i n g t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d commenced when they w e r e d e mo t e d i n 1982 h a s " i m m e d i a t e a p p e a l , " the d i s t r i c t court r e j e c t e d the argument because o f i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of United A i r L in e s , Inc , v . Evans , 431 U . S . 553 ( 1977) . P e t . App. 25a. A l s o the d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e j e c t e d , Pe t . App. 27a- 31a, the m a g i s t r a t e ' s r u l i n g , which AT&T had advanced, that the l im i t a t i o n s p e r io d commenced f o r a l l p e t i t i o n e r s when the 18 t e s t e r s e n i o r i t y p o l i c y was adopted . Pe t . App. 43a-44a. 4. As d i d the d i s t r i c t c o u r t , the c o u r t o f a p p e a l s f o u n d t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s ' a r g u m e n t w as " l o g i c a l l y a p p e a l i n g " but n e v e r th e le s s r e j e c t e d the argum ent b e c a u s e th e co u r t " c o n c lu d e [d ] that the r e l e v a n t d i s c r im in a t o r y ac t that t r i g g e r s the p e r i o d o f l i m i t a t i o n s occurs at the time an employee becomes s u b j e c t to a f a c i a l l y n e u t r a l bu t d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y system that the employee knows, o r r e a s o n a b l y s h o u l d k n o w , i s d i s c r i m i n a t o r y . " Pe t . App. 8a -9a . The c o u r t r e j e c t e d the p l a i n t i f f s ' argument that any adve rse a c t io n taken pursuant to a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m c o n s t i t u t e s a d i s c r im in a t o r y act because " e m p lo y e e s c o u ld c h a l l e n g e a s e n i o r i t y system i n d e f i n i t e l y " and such a r u l i n g "w o u ld run cou n te r to the s t r o n g p o l i c y 19 f a v o r i n g t h e p r o m p t r e s o l u t i o n o f d i s c r im in a t i o n d i s p u t e s . " Pe t . App . 8a. The c o u r t a l s o r e j e c t e d the argument advanced by AT&T and Loca l 1942 that the f i l i n g p e r io d must run from the a d o p t i o n o f t h e s y s t e m b e c a u s e " [ r ] e q u i r i n g em p loyee s to c o n t e s t any s e n i o r i t y system that might some day ap p ly t o t h e m w o u l d e n c o u r a g e n e e d l e s s l i t i g a t i o n " a nd " w o u l d f r u s t r a t e the rem edia l p o l i c i e s that a r e the founda t ion o f T i t l e V I I . " I b i d . The cour t b e l i e v e d t h a t i t h ad " s t r [ u c k ] a b a l a n c e t h a t r e f l e c t s b o t h t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f e l i m i n a t i n g e x i s t i n g d i s c r im in a t i o n , and the need to in su re that c la ims a r e f i l e d as promptly as p o s s i b l e . " Pe t . App. 9a. S in c e the p e t i t i o n e r s f i l e d t h e i r SSOC charges more than 300 days a f t e r they had become s u b j e c t to the s e n i o r i t y system, t h e i r c l a i m s w e re deemed t i m e - b a r r e d . 20 I b i d . J u d g e C u d ah y d i s s e n t e d . He c o n c lu d e d th a t the c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n d id not s e rv e the g o a l o f en su r in g the prompt r e s o l u t i o n o f c h a l l e n g e s to s e n i o r i t y systems s in c e c h a l l e n g e s may be brought in the fu tu r e by members o f the c l a s s who a re not c u r r e n t l y s u b j e c t t o th e s e n i o r i t y sy s tem . M o r e o v e r , the p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d t h e i r c h a r g e s when they were in ju r e d by t h e i r demotion; " [ v ] i e w e d in that d i r e c t and u n c lu t t e r e d f a s h io n , t h e i r compla ints were t i m e l y . " P e t . App . 10a. Moreover, Judge Cudahy c r i t i c i z e d the m a jo r i t y f o r e n c o u r a g i n g p r e m a t u r e o r u n n e c e s s a r y l a w s u i t s by r e q u i r i n g w o r k e r s to f i l e l a w s u i t s b e f o r e they have been in ju r e d and even th ough th e y may n e v e r be in ju r e d . I b i d . The Seven th C i r c u i t denied the p l a i n t i f f s ' p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g and 21 su g g e s t io n f o r r e h e a r in g en b a n c , a l though t h r e e J u d g e s , Cudahy, E a s t e r b r o o k , and R ip p le , voted to g ran t r e h e a r in g en b a n c . Pet . App . l a - 2 a . SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT A. On s e v e n d i f f e r e n t o c c a s i o n s the Court has cons ide red the o p e ra t io n o f an i l l e g a l s e n i o r i t y system as an "u n law fu l e m p lo y m e n t p r a c t i c e " u n d e r T i t l e V I I r e g a r d l e s s o f the date on which the system w as a d o p t e d o r th e d a t e on w h ich the p l a i n t i f f i n i t i a l l y became s u b j e c t to the system. A s e n i o r i t y system i s i l l e g a l i f , as here , i t i s the product o f an in te n t to d i s c r i m i n a t e . W h e n e v e r t h e s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m o p e r a t e d a s in t e n d e d by AT&T and Loca l 1942 t o d e n y j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o p e t i t i o n e r s because o f t h e i r gender , AT&T and L o c a l 1942 committed an " u n l a w f u l employment p r a c t i c e . " As t h i s Court he ld 22 "that; each a p p l i c a t i o n o f a d i s c r im in a t o r y pay p r a c t i c e i s "a wrong, a c t i o n a b l e under T i t l e V I I , " Bazemore v . F r i d a y , 478 U.S. 385, 395-96 ( 1986) , so i s each a p p l i c a t i o n o f the d i s c r im in a t o r y s e n i o r i t y p r a c t i c e . T h e r e f o r e , the p e t i t i o n e r s f i l e d t im e ly c h a r g e s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b e c a u s e they f i l e d those charges w i t h in 300 days o f the d a t e th e y w e re harmed by an " u n l a w f u l e m p lo y m e n t p r a c t i c e , " t h a t i s by the o p e ra t io n o f the d i s c r im in a t o r y s e n i o r i t y system . 3. The S e v e n th C i r c u i t ' s r u l e t h a t a worker must f i l e a charge w i t h in 300 days o f i n i t i a l l y b e c o m i n g s u b j e c t t o a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m even though the system has not been a p p l i e d and may never be a p p l i e d to the detr im ent o f t h e w o r k e r w i l l s e r v e t o h i n d e r the e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t implementation o f T i t l e V I I . The requirement that a worker 23 m u s t f i l e p r e m a t u r e a n d p o s s i b l y u n n e c e s s a r y l i t i g a t i o n a b o u t t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f a n e w l y i n s t i t u t e d p r a c t i c e i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e i n v i e w o f the f a c t that Congress e s t a b l i s h e d c o o p e r a t i o n and v o l u n t a r y c o m p l i a n c e a s th e p r e f e r r e d approaches f o r a c h ie v in g equa l employment o p p o r t u n i t y . Moreover, the l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f the 1972 amendments to T i t l e V I I con f i rms t h a t C o n g r e s s i n t e n d e d t o a d o p t t h e " co n t in u in g v i o l a t i o n " p r i n c i p l e whereby a v i c t i m o f d i s c r im in a t i o n may t im e ly f i l e from the " l a s t occu rrence " o f an u n law fu l system r a th e r than from the adopt ion o f or " f i r s t occu rrence " o f the system. Such a p r i n c i p l e i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e w h e r e " u n t r a i n e d laymen" i n i t i a t e the p rocess f o r e n fo r c in g T i t l e V I I . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h i s C o u r t h a s 24 r e cogn iz ed the importance o f i n t e r p r e t i n g th e l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n s a p p l i c a b l e to rem edia l l e g i s l a t i o n s i m i l a r to T i t l e V I I t o p e r m i t t i m e l y c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e o p e r a t i o n o f l o n g - e s t a b l i s h e d i l l e g a l p r a c t i c e s . The Court has he ld that the c o n t i n u i n g o p e r a t i o n o f p r a c t i c e s in v i o l a t i o n o f l a w s d e s i g n e d to p r o t e c t c i v i l r i g h t s , such as the F a i r Housing Act o f 1968 , o r p r e v e n t u n f a i r b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t i e s g i v e s r i s e to a cause o f a c t io n w h e n e v e r t h a t o p e r a t i o n c a u s e s harm. S i m i l a r l y , the Court shou ld ho ld that the o p e r a t i o n o f a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y system v i o l a t e s T i t l e V I I and g i v e s r i s e to a cause o f a c t i o n whenever that ongoing o p e ra t io n harms a worker . 25 ARGUMENT FEMALE WORKERS MAY FILE A TIMELY TITLE V I I CHARGE W IT H IN 300 DAYS OF THEIR JOB DEMOTION DUE TO THE OPERATION OF A DISCRIMINATORY SENIORITY SYSTEM DESIGNED TO ADVANTAGE MALE WORKERS OVER FEMALE WORKERS. A . The C o u r t ' s D ec is io n s Make C le a r That a Worker Harmed by the O pera t ion o f a D i s c r i m i n a t o r y S e n i o r i t y System I s Perm itted To F i l e a Charge W ith in 300 Days o f the Date o f that Harm. 1. S e c t i o n 7 0 6 ( e ) o f T i t l e V I I r e q u i r e s t h a t a w o r k e r a l l e g i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n f i l e a c h a r g e w i t h the E q u a l Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission " w i t h i n t h r e e h u n d r e d d ay s a f t e r the a l l e g e d u n l a w f u l emp1oym ent p r a c t i c e occurred. . . . " (Emphasis added); see, n. 11, s u p r a . The f i l i n g o f a t im e ly charge i s a requirement f o r f i l i n g a l a w s u i t in f e d e r a l c o u r t . “ 1 A I n Z i o e s v . T r a n s W o r l d A i r l i n e s , I n c . , 455 U.S. 385, 393 (1982) , t h e C o u r t h e l d " t h a t f i l i n g a t i m e l y charge o f d i s c r im in a t i o n w ith the EEOC i s ( c o n t in u ed . . . ) 26 A T & T c o m m i t t e d a n " u n l a w f u l employment p r a c t i c e " when i t ope ra ted i t s d i s c r im in a t o r y s e n i o r i t y system to demote Lorance , Bueschen, King and o the r women to l o w e r p a y i n g j o b s w h i l e r e t a i n i n g male e m p l o y e e s i n t h e h i g h e r p a y in g j o b s . S in c e L o r a n c e , B ueschen and K in g f i l e d c h a r g e s w i t h i n 300 d ay s o f t h e i r j o b d e m o t i o n s , t h e i r c h a r g e s w e re t i m e l y f i l e d . This Court has he ld unanimously that " [ e ] ach w e e k ' s p ay ch ec k t h a t d e l i v e r s l e s s t o a b l a c k t h a n to a s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d w h i te i s a wrong a c t i o n a b l e under T i t l e V I I , r e g a r d l e s s o f the f a c t that t h i s p a t t e r n was b e g u n p r i o r t o the e f f e c t i v e date o f T i t l e V I I . " Bazemore v. 1 2 ( . . . cont inued ) not a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e q u i s i t e to sue in f e d e r a l c o u r t , but a requirement th a t , l i k e a s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s i s s u b j e c t t o w a i v e r , e s t o p p e l , and e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g ." 27 F r i d a y , 478 U . S . a t 395 -96 . L ike each o p e r a t i o n o f a d i s c r im in a t o r y pay system w h i c h a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t s e m p lo y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s or b e n e f i t s , each o p e ra t io n o f a d i s c r im in a t o r y s e n i o r i t y system i s an u n law fu l employment p r a c t i c e . In Bazemore the Court e x p la in e d that t h e e m p l o y e r ' s e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y pay system " p r i o r to the time i t was covered by T i t l e V I I does not e x c u s e p e r p e t u a t i n g t h a t d i s c r i m in a t i o n a f t e r th e [ e m p l o y e r ] became c o v e r e d by T i t l e V I I . " 478 U.S. a t 395, (emphasis in o r i g i n a l ) . S i m i l a r l y , the f a c t that AT&T and the U n ion a d o p t e d a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y system b e fo r e 300 days from the f i l i n g o f the charges does not immunize a c t s p e r p e t u a t i n g t h a t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o c c u r r in g w i t h in 300 days from the f i l i n g o f the charge . 2. The s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n o f 28 " u n l a w f u l employment p r a c t i c e " r e q u i r e s the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t each a p p l i c a t i o n o f the d i s c r im in a t o r y s e n i o r i t y system to the d e t r i m e n t o f a f e m a l e w o r k e r i s an a c t i o n a b l e w ro n g . S e c t ion 703 p ro v id e s that ( a ) I t s h a l l b e a n u n l a w f u l em p loym en t p r a c t i c e f o r a n employer - (2 ) t o l i m i t , s e g r e g a t e , or c l a s s i f y h i s em p lo y ee s . . . in an y way w h ich w ou ld d e p r i v e o r t e n d t o d e p r iv e any i n d i v i d u a l o f e m p l o y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s o r o t h e r w i s e a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t h i s - s t a t u s as an employee because o f s u c h i n d i v i d u a l ' s r a c e , c o l o r , r e l i g i o n , s e x o r n a t i o n a l o r i g i n . (Emphasis ad ded ) . In h o ld in g that a worker must f i l e a c h a r g e w i t h i n 300 d a y s o f b e c o m i n g " s u b j e c t " to the d i s c r im in a t o r y s e n i o r i t y system, Pe t . app. 9a, which in the case o f 29 Lorance i s the "ad op t ion " o f the system, i n e f f e c t t h e S e v e n t h C i r c u i t r e a d s s e c t i o n 7 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) as making an "un law fu l p r a c t i c e " o n l y t h e " a d o p t i o n " o r the i n i t i a l s u b j e c t i o n o f a w o rk e r to the c h a l l e n g e d p r a c t i c e . The S e v e n t h C i r c u i t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f " u n l a w f u l p r a c t i c e " p e r m i t s a c h a l l e n g e to the a d o p t i o n o f a p r a c t i c e e s t a b l i s h e d to d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t female workers but immunizes the a c t u a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f the p r a c t i c e to " d e p r i v e " female workers o f j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s . The l o w e r c o u r t ' s s t a n d a r d f a i l s to app ly the language in s e c t i o n 7 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) p r o s c r i b i n g a i l p r a c t i c e s which " d e p r iv e " female workers o f employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s or "o the rw ise a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t " employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f female workers because o f t h e i r gender. The i l l o g i c o f the l o w e r c o u r t ' s a n a l y s i s i s appa ren t . For example, l e t us 30 assume t h a t j o b d e m o t io n s i n th e AT&T p l a n t a r e b a s e d upon a d e c i s i o n by a s u p e r v i s o r r a th e r than upon the o p e ra t io n o f a s e n i o r i t y system. I f the s u p e r v i s o r d ec id e s to demote female r a t h e r than male workers to l o w e r -p a y in g p o s i t i o n s because the h i g h e r -p a y in g job s were " t r a d i t i o n a l l y male" j o b s , then th e re i s no q u e s t io n but t h a t t h e f e m a l e w o r k e r s c o u l d f i l e a c h a r g e w i t h i n 3 0 0 d a y s f r o m t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s u n l a w f u l p r a c t i c e . The f a c t t h a t the j o b demotions o f the female workers were due to the o p e ra t io n o f a sy stem at ic and i n t e n t i o n a l l y des igned p lan to p ro t e c t the male workers in t h e i r " t r a d i t i o n a l " j o b s r a t h e r t h a n t h e a b e r r a n t d e c i s i o n o f a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s u p e r v i s o r shou ld not p rec lu d e the female workers from f i l i n g t im e ly charges w i t h in 300 days o f t h e i r j o b demotions. To i n s u l a t e f r o m c h a l l e n g e t h e 31 o n g o i n g o p e r a t i o n o f s y s t e m a t i c and p la n n e d d i s c r i m i n a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d in a s e n i o r i t y system des igned to p ro t e c t job a d v a n t a g e s o f male w o r k e r s o v e r female w o r k e r s ru n s c o u n t e r to a fu n d a m en ta l purpose o f the f a i r employment law. The o b j e c t i v e o f Congress in the enactment o f T i t l e V I I i s p l a i n f r o m t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e . I t w as t o a c h i e v e e q u a l i t y o f e m p l o y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d r e m o v e b a r r i e r s that have ope ra ted in t h e p a s t t o f a v o r a n i d e n t i f i a b l e group o f wh ite [ o r m a l e ] e m p l o y e e s o v e r o t h e r e m p l o y e e s . U n d e r t h e A c t , p r a c t i c e s , p rocedures , or t e s t s n e u t r a l on t h e i r f a c e and even n e u t r a l i n t e r m s o f i n t e n t , c a n n o t be m a i n t a i n e d i f th ey o p e r a t e to ' f r e e z e ' the s t a t u s quo o f p r i o r d i s c r i m i n a t o r y employment p r a c t i c e s . G r i g g s v . Duke Power C o . , 401 U.S. 424, 429-30 ( 1971) , (emphasis added ) . 3. This C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n s r e g a rd in g the l e g a l i t y o f s e n i o r i t y sy s tem s make c l e a r t h a t th e o p e r a t i o n o f an i l l e g a l s e n i o r i t y system i s an un law fu l employment 32 p r a c t i c e r e g a r d l e s s o f the date when the system was e s t a b l i s h e d . In Teamsters v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 431 U.S. 324 ( 1977) , the C o u r t f i r s t c o n s i d e r e d w h e t h e r t h e p e rp e tu a t io n o f p r i o r d i s c r i m in a t i o n by a s e n i o r i t y system which a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d th e o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f b l a c k w o r k e r s was i l l e g a l . T h e C o u r t d e s c r i b e d t h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e s e n i o r i t y system. An example would be a Negro who w a s q u a l i f i e d t o be a l i n e d r i v e r in 1958 but who, because o f h i s r a c e , w a s a s s i g n e d in s t e a d a job as a c i t y d r i v e r , and i s a l lo w e d to become a l i n e d r i v e r on ly in 1971. Because he l o s e s h i s com p et i t iv e s e n i o r i t y when he t r a n s f e r s j o b s , he i s f o r e v e r j u n i o r to w h i t e l i n e d r i v e r s h i r e d between 1958 and 19 70. The w h i t e s , r a th e r than the Negro , w i l l h en ce fo r th en joy the p r e f e r a b l e runs and g r e a t e r p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t l a y o f f . A l t h o u g h t h e o r i g i n a l d i s c r i m in a t i o n occurred in 1958 — b e f o r e the e f f e c t i v e date o f T i t l e V I I — t h e s e n i o r i t v s v s tern o p e r a t e s to c a r r y the 33 e f f e c t s o f t h e e a r l i e r d i s c r im in a t i o n in to the p r e s e n t . 431 U.S. a t 344 n. 27, (emphasis ad ded ) . The o p e r a t io n o f the AT&T-Union s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m i s i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f rom the o p e r a t i o n o f the system in T e a m s t e r s . Under the AT&T system, females a s s ig n e d to " t r a d i t i o n a l l y female" jo b s a re fo rc ed to f o r f e i t t h e i r p l a n t s e n i o r i t y when they move i n t o the t e s t e r p o s i t i o n s . Female w o r k e r s a r e t h e r e b y j u n i o r to the male w o r k e r s who w ere h i r e d i n t o the p l a n t a f t e r the female workers . Thus, d u r in g a r e d u c t i o n - i n - f o r c e the s e n i o r i t y system ope ra te s to c a r r y fo rward to the p resen t the e f f e c t s o f the e a r l i e r d i v i s i o n o f j o b s by g e n d e r and c a u s e s th e f e m a le workers to be demoted to low e r -p a y in g job s r a th e r than the male workers who have l e s s p la n t s e n i o r i t y than the female workers . In Teamsters the Court r e j e c t e d the lower c o u r t ' s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d a p p l i c a t i o n 34 o f G r ig g s to the s e n i o r i t y system. "Were i t n o t f o r § 7 0 3 ( h ) , 13 th e s e n i o r i t y sy s tem in t h i s c a s e w ou ld seem to f a l l u n d e r th e G r i g g s r a t i o n a l e . " But the C o u r t h e l d t h a t s e c t i o n 7 0 3 ( h ) o n l y " e x t e n d e d a m e a s u r e o f i m m u n i t y t o " s e n i o r i t y system s . 431 U.S. a t 349-50. S e c t i o n 7 0 3 ( h ) " d o e s no t immunize a l l s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m s " b e c a u s e i t o n l y p r o t e c t s "bona f i d e " systems which do not c a u s e d i f f e r e n c e s in treatment which a r e " t h e r e s u l t o f a n i n t e n t i o n t o d i s c r i m i n a t e . . . . " T eam ste rs , 431 U.S . at 353, qu o t in g s e c t i o n 703 ( h ) . S e c t i o n 7 0 3 ( h ) p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any o t h e r p r o v i s i o n o f t h i s s u b c h a p t e r , i t s h a l l n o t be an u n l a w f u l e mp l o y me n t p r a c t i c e f o r an e m p l o y e r t o a p p l y d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d s o f compensation, or d i f f e r e n t terms, c o n d i t i o n s , o r p r i v i l e g e s o f employment p u r s u a n t to a bona f i d e s e n i o r i t y o r m e r i t sy stem . . . p r o v id e d that such d i f f e r e n c e s a r e not the r e s u l t o f an i n t e n t i o n to d i s c r im in a t e because o f race, color, religion, sex, or national o r ig in . . . . " 35 The s e n i o r i t y system in Teamsters was " e n t i r e l y bona f i d e " b e c a u s e " [ i ] t i s conceded that the s e n i o r i t y system d id not have i t s g e n e s i s in r a c i a l d i s c r im in a t i o n , and t h a t i t was n e g o t i a t e d and has been mainta ined f r e e from any i l l e g a l p u rp o se . " 431 U . S . a t 355-56. The con ten t ions in Lorance a r e to the c o n t ra ry . The female workers m ainta in that the s e n i o r i t y system was des igned by the IBEW and the Company i n o r d e r to p r o t e c t the d i s c r i m i n a t o r y j o b " a d v a n t a g e g a i n e d by the male o v e r female workers d u r in g the p e r io d when the p la n t in c lu ded " t r a d i t i o n a l l y " female and male j o b s . P u r s u a n t t o t h e a n a l y s i s i n T eam ste rs , the Court would have he ld the o p e ra t io n o f the s e n i o r i t y system at i s su e i n T e a m s t e r s an " u n l a w f u l employment p r a c t i c e " i f t h e s y s t e m h a d b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d or maintained w ith an in ten t 36 to d i s c r im in a t e even though the system was e s t a b l i s h e d p r i o r to the e f f e c t i v e date o f T i t l e V I I . "As § 703(h) was construed In T e a m s t e r s , t h e r e must be a f i n d i n g o f a c t u a l i n t e n t to d i s c r i m in a t e on r a c i a l g r o u n d s on t h e p a r t o f t h o s e who n e g o t i a t e d o r m a i n t a i n e d th e s y s t e m . " P u l l m a n - S t a n d a r d Co. v. S w in t , 456 U.S. 273, 289 ( 1982) , (emphasis a d d e d ) . 14 W h e r e a s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m i s the product o f an in te n t to d i s c r im in a t e , i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to the d is ad van tage o f those p e r s o n s a g a i n s t whom t h e i n t e n t i o n a l d i s c r im in a t i o n was d i r e c t e d i s an u n law fu l employment p r a c t i c e . T e am ste r s , sup ra ; P u l l m a n - S t a n d a r d C o . , s u p r a ; A m er ic an As in Teamsters the s e n i o r i t y system a t i s s u e in Swint was adopted many y e a r s p r i o r to the e f f e c t i v e date o f T i t l e V I I . 456 U.S. a t 278. The d i f f e r e n t i a l treatment caused by the o p e r a t io n o f the s e n i o r i t y system in Swint r e s u l t e d from a sy stem a d o p t e d many ye a r s b e f o r e i t was p o s s i b l e to f i l e charges o f d i s c r im in a t i o n . 37 Tobacco Co. v. P a t t e r s o n , 456 U.S. 63, 69- 70 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ( " S u c h a p p l i c a t i o n [ o f a s e n i o r i t y system ] i s not in f i r m under § 7 0 3 ( h ) u n l e s s i t i s a ccom p an ied by a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p u r p o s e . " ) ; T r a n s W o r ld A i r l i n e s , Inc , v. H a rd i s o n , 43 2 U.S. 63, 82 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ( " [ A j b s e n t a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p u r p o s e , th e o p e r a t i o n o f a s e n i o r i t y sy stem can n o t be an u n law fu l employment p r a c t i c e e v e n i f the sy stem has some d i s c r im in a t o r y consequ ences . " ) Two d e c i s i o n s by the Court i l l u s t r a t e that workers may c h a l l e n g e as an un law fu l employment p r a c t i c e the o p e r a t i o n o f a l o n g - e s t a b l i s h e d s e n i o r i t y sy s tem . In C a l i f o r n i a Brewers A s s o c i a t i o n v. 3 r y a n t , 444 U.S. 598 ( 1980) , the Court cons idered w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r a c t u a l p r o v i s i o n 1® was p a r t o f a s e n i o r i t y system 15 15 The p r o v i s i o n a f f o r d e d g r e a t e r b e n e f i t s t o " p e r m a n e n t " t h a n t o ( c o n t in u ed . . . ) 38 p r o t e c t e d by s e c t i o n 703 ( h ) . The Court concluded that the p r o v i s i o n was p a r t o f a s e n i o r i t y system but remanded the case to the l o w e r c o u r t i n o r d e r to permit the p l a i n t i f f s to e s t a b l i s h that the system was not "bona f i d e , " 444 U.S. a t 610-11, even th ough th e p r o v i s i o n i s p a r t o f a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g " a g r e e m e n t n e g o t i a t e d more than 20 ye a r s a g o . " 444 U.S. a t 602. In N a s h v i l l e Gas Co. v. S a t t y , 434 U.S. 136 ( 1977) , the Court r u l e d i l l e g a l th e com p an y 's p r a c t i c e r e q u i r i n g female e m p l o y e e s r e t u r n i n g to work f o l l o w i n g p r e g n a n c y l e a v e t o f o r f e i t t h e i r accumulated s e n i o r i t y w h i le not r e q u i r i n g •̂5 ( . . . con t inued ) "temporary" employees. In o rd e r to become a permanent employee, a temporary employee had t o w o r k a t l e a s t 45 w e e k s i n a p a r t i c u l a r y e a r . S ince m in o r i t y employees w e r e d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y " t e m p o r a r y " e m p l o y e e s , t h e p r o v i s i o n a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d the employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f m in or i ty employees. 39 such s e n i o r i t y f o r f e i t u r e by em p loyees r e t u r n i n g f r o m d i s a b i l i t y l e a v e . Although h i r e d in 1969 and s u b j e c t to the p r a c t i c e f o r y e a r s , the p l a i n t i f f d id not c h a l l e n g e t h e p r a c t i c e u n t i l she was denied her accumulated s e n i o r i t y when she re tu rned from pregnancy l e av e in 1973. Under the Seventh C i r c u i t ' s Lorance r u l e n e i t h e r Bryant nor S a t ty would have been perm itted to c h a l l e n g e the o p e ra t io n o f these s e n i o r i t y systems ye a r s a f t e r the s y s t e m s w e r e a d o p t e d and a f t e r t h e p l a i n t i f f s b e c a m e s u b j e c t t o t h e s e s e n i o r i t y p r a c t i c e s . I n t h e one d e c i s i o n i n w h ich the C ou rt c o n s i d e r e d the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n t o the c u r r e n t o p e r a t i o n o f a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y system , the Court endorsed the p r i n c i p l e argued f o r by the p e t i t i o n e r s . The Court d e t e r m i n e d t h a t T i t l e V I I " d o e s n o t 40 f o r e c l o s e a t t a c k s on the c u r re n t o p e ra t io n o f s e n i o r i t y systems which a re s u b j e c t to c h a l l e n g e as d i s c r i m i n a t o r y . " Un ited A i r L i n e s v . Evans , 431 U . S . a t 560. In Un ited A i r L ines the Court he ld that the c h a l l e n g e t o t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r s e n i o r i t y system was not t im e ly because p l a i n t i f f Evans d id not c h a l l e n g e the l e g a l i t y o f the system i t s e l f . I b i d . ; s e e , Bazemore, 478 U.S. a t 396 n. 6. U n l ik e Lorance , Evans d id not a s s e r t t h a t t h e s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m i t s e l f was i l l e g a l b u t m e r e l y t h a t t h e s y s t e m p e r p e t u a t e d the e f f e c t s o f the i l l e g a l p o l i c y o f f o r c e d t e r m i n a t i o n wh ich the company no l o n g e r a p p l i e d . 16 However, 16 Evans had been fo r c e d to r e s i g n by Un ited A i r L in e s ' p o l i c y o f r e f u s i n g to e m p l o y p r e g n a n t s t e w a r d e s s e s . A f t e r r e h i r e , Evans complained that the company d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t her by f a i l i n g to c o u n t h e r s e n i o r i t y f r o m h e r p r i o r employment. 41 L o r a n c e c o m p l a i n s t h a t t h e s e n i o r i t y system i t s e l f i s d i s c r im in a t o r y because i t i s the product o f a co n sp i ra cy by AT&T and Loca l 1942 to p ro t e c t the job p o s i t i o n s o f m a l e w o r k e r s and to d i s c o u r a g e f e m a le workers from t r a n s f e r r i n g in to job s in the t e s t e r u n iv e r s e which were v iewed as men's j o b s . S i n c e L o r a n c e c l a im s t h a t the system i s not bona f i d e because th e re was an " a c t u a l in t e n t to d i s c r im in a t e . . . on the p a r t o f those who n e g o t i a t e d . . . the s y s t e m , " P u l lm a n - S t a n d a r d Co. v. S w in t , 456 U . S . a t 289, which makes the system " s u b j e c t t o c h a l l e n g e a s [ i l l e g a l l y ] d i s c r i m i n a t o r y , " t h e p e t i t i o n e r s may c h a l l e n g e " the cu r ren t o p e ra t io n o f [ t h e ] s e n i o r i t y system[ ] . " Un ited A i r L ines v. Evans, 431 U.S. a t 5 6 0 .17 1 7 A lso the Seventh C i r c u i t e r r s on r e l y i n g upon D e l a w a r e S t a t e C o l l e g e v. R i c k s , 449 U . S . 250 (1980) , to conclude t h a t the c h a r g e s w ere u n t im e ly f i l e d . ( c o n t in u ed . . . ) 42 The d e c i s i o n i n U n i t e d A i r L i n e s f o l l o w s from the C o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 7 0 3 ( h ) i n F r a n k s v . Bowman T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o . , 424 U.S. 747 ( 1976) . In Franks the Court he ld th a t the s e c t i o n does not p rec lu d e the award o f r e t r o a c t i v e s e n i o r i t y a s a remedy to a p p l i c a n t s who w ere d i s c r i m i n a t o r i l y denied h i r e a f t e r the e f f e c t i v e da te o f T i t l e V I I . In so doing the Court concluded that § 703(h) i s 1 7 ( . . . c o n t in u e d ) R i c k s c o m p l a i n e d t h a t h e w a s d i s c r i m i n a t o r i l y denied tenure but d id not f i l e a t im e ly charge from the date o f the a d v e r s e t e n u r e d e c i s i o n . R a t h e r , he a r g u e d t h a t he cont inued to s u f f e r harm d ur ing the one y ea r he worked pursuant to a t e r m i n a t i o n c o n t r a c t . The C o u r t r e j e c t e d t h e a r g u m e n t b e c a u s e t h e " t e r m i n a t i o n o f e mp l o y me n t . . . i s a d e l a y e d , bu t i n e v i t a b l e , consequence o f t h e d e n i a l o f t e n u r e . . . . [ T ] he o n l y a l l e g e d d i s c r im in a t i o n occurred — and the f i l i n g l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d s t h e r e f o r e commenced — a t t h e t i m e t h e t e n u r e d e c i s i o n was m a d e . . . . " 449 U.S. a t 257- 58. U n l ik e the pay p r a c t i c e in Bazemore and the s e n i o r i t y system in L o ra n c e , no c u r r e n t d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r a c t i c e was a l l e g e d in R i c k s . 43 " o n l y a d e f i n i t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n " w h ich , l i k e " o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s o f § 703 . . . d e l i n e a t e s which employment p r a c t i c e s a re i l l e g a l . . . and which a r e n o t . " As such, s e c t i o n 7 0 3 ( h ) d oe s not " l i m i t [ ] or q u a l i f [ y ] the r e l i e f a u th o r i z e d " by T i t l e V I I " i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s w here an i l l e g a l d i s c r i m i n a t o r y . . . p r a c t i c e i s f o u n d . " 424 U.S . a t 758-59. As s e c t i o n 703(h) does not l i m i t the s c o p e o f remedy a v a i l a b l e under s e c t i o n 7 0 6 ( g ) , the r e m e d i a l s e c t i o n o f T i t l e V I I , so i t does not l im i t the reach o f the f i l i n g p e r i o d s p rov ided by s e c t i o n 70 6 ( e ) . Rather , " the th ru s t o f [ s e c t i o n 7 0 3 ( h ) ] i s d i r e c t e d toward d e f i n in g what i s and what i s not an i l l e g a l d i s c r im in a t o r y p r a c t i c e i n i n s t a n c e s i n w h i c h t h e p o s t - A c t o p e r a t i o n o f a s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m i s ch a l l e n g e d as p e rp e tu a t in g the e f f e c t s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o c c u r r i n g p r i o r to the 44 e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f th e A c t . " (Emphasis added) 424 U.S. a t 761. T h e re fo re , b eg in n in g w ith Franks the Supreme C ou r t on s e v e n o c c a s i o n s 10 has c o n s i d e r e d the o p e r a t i o n o f an i l l e g a l s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m a s an " u n l a w f u l employment p r a c t i c e " r e g a r d l e s s o f the d a t e on which the system was adopted or the date on which the p l a i n t i f f i n i t i a l l y b e c a m e s u b j e c t t o t h e s y s t e m . A c c o r d i n g l y , p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 706( e ) e m p lo y e e s , a s d i d the p e t i t i o n e r s , may f i l e a t im e ly charge w i t h in 300 days o f s u f f e r i n g harm f rom th e o p e r a t i o n o f a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y sy stem - - the " u n la w fu l employment p r a c t i c e . " 4. O th e r than the Seventh C i r c u i t 18 s u p r a ; United T e a m s t e r s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , A i r L ines v. Evans , s u p r a ; C a l i f o r n i a Brewers A s s o c i a t i o n v . Bryant s u p r a ; American Tobacco Co. v. P a t t e r s o n s u p r a ; Pu l lm an -Standard C o . v . Swint , supra 45 in L o r a n c e , each a p p e l l a t e court which has a p p l i e d the l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n s to a s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m h a s h e l d " t h a t t h e a l l e g e d d i s c r im in a t o r y v i o l a t i o n s [caused by a s e n i o r i t y system] must be c l a s s i f i e d as cont inuous ones, g i v i n g r i s e to c la ims a c c r u i n g i n f a v o r o f each p l a i n t i f f on e a c h o c c a s i o n when t h e [ s y s t e m i s ] a p p l i e d . . . . " Cook v . P a n A m e r i c a n A irw ays , I n c . , 771 F.2d 635, 646 (2d C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) , c e r t , d e n i e d , 474 U . S . 1109 (19 8 6) . 19 Se e a l s o , M o r e lo c k v . NCR 19 The Second C i r c u i t a p p l i e d the l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s gove rn in g the t im e l in e s s o f T i t l e V I I c h a r g e s to d e t e r m in e the t im e l in e s s o f a case f i l e d pursuant to the Age D i s c r i m i n a t i o n in Employment Act o f 1967 ( ADEA) , 29 U . S . C . §§ 621 e t s e c . Cook v . Pan American World A irways , I n c . , 771 F . 2d a t 646. The Second C i r c u i t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n o f T i t l e V I I p r i n c i p l e s to the f i l i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e ADEA i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n s . Z ip es v. Trans World A i r l i n e s , 455 U.S. at 395 n . l l ( C o n g r e s s m ode led th e f i l i n g r e q u i r e m e n t i n the ADEA a f t e r the T i t l e V I I r e c u i r e m e n t ) ; O sca r Mayer & Co. v. Evans , *441 U . S . 750, 756 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . See ( co n t in u e d . . . ) 46 1978) , c e r t . den.ied, 441 U.S. 906 ( 1979) ; P a t t e r s o n v . Am er ican Toba c c o Co . , 634 F.2d 744, 751 ( 4th C i r . 1980) , v aca ted on other g r o u n d s , 456 U.S . 63 ( 1982) . " M o s t c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a v e . . . r e j e c t e d [ t h e Seventh C i r c u i t ' s ] a n a l y s i s [ i n L o r a n c e ] . They h a v e r e a s o n e d , i n s t e a d , t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y sy stem to a p a r t i c u l a r s u b s t a n t i v e d e c i s i o n ( e . g . , to promote, d e m o t e , f i r e , o r a w a r d b e n e f i t s ) c o n s t i t u t e s an independent d i s c r im in a t o r y ac t which can t r i g g e r the commencement o f the s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . " Johnson v. Genera l E l e c t r i c , 840 F.2d 132, 135 (1 s t C i r . 1988) . See e . g . , S t o l l e r v . M arsh , 1^ ( . . .con t inued ) a l s o , Bruno v. Western E l e c t r i c C o . , 829 F .2d 957, 960 n . l (10th C i r . 1987) ( " [ T ] h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f the c o n t in u in g v i o l a t i o n t h e o r y [ i s ] the same f o r ADEA and T i t l e V I I c a s e s . . . . " ) . Coro . , 586 F.2d 1096, 1103 (6th Cir. 47 682 F . 2 d 971, 978 -79 ( D. C . C i r . 1982) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 460 U.S. 1037 ( 1983) ; EEOC v . W est inghouse__El e c t r i c Corn. , 7 2 5 F . 2d 211, 219 (3d C i r . 1983) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 469 U.S. 820 ( 1984) ; T av io r v. Home__Insurance C o m p a n y , 777 F . 2d 849, 856 ( 4 t h C i r . 1985) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 476 U.S. 1142 ( 1986) ; Abrams v. B ay lo r C o l l e g e o f M e d ic in e , 805 F .2d 528, 534 (5 th C i r . 1986) ; Satz v. ITT F in a n c ia l C o r p . , 619 F.2d 738, 743-44 (8tn C i r . 1 9 80 ) ; W i l l i a m s v . O w e n s - I l l i n o i s , 'I n c . , 665 F .2d 918, 924- 25 ( 9 t h C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 459 U.S. 971 (1982) ; Furr y. AT&T T e c h n o l o g i e s , I n c . , 824 F.2d 1537, 1543 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1987) ( " A c la im o f age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . . . may be b a s e d on a c o n t i n u i n g p o l i c y a n d p r a c t i c e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t h a t b e g a n b e f o r e the s t a t u t o r y f i l i n g p e r i o d , as long as the e m p l o y e r c o n t i n u e s t o a p p l y t h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p o l i c y . . . to a p o i n t 48 O f) w i t h in the r e l e v a n t f i l i n g p e r i o d . . . . " ) . B . T h e E f f e c t i v e a n d E f f i c i e n t Implementa t i o n o f T i t l e V I I Requ i r e s that a Worker Be Pe rm itted To F i l e a T i m e l y C h a r g e f r o m t h e D a t e t h e Worker I s Harmed by the O pera t ion o f a D i s c r im in a t o r y S e n i o r i t y System. As t h e F i r s t C i r c u i t s t a t e d , the Lorance d e c i s i o n i s "un rea son ab le , as w e l l a s u n d e s i r a b l e f r o m a p u b l i c p o l i c y p e r s p e c t i v e . " J o h n s o n v . G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c , 840 F . 2 d a t 136, ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . 1. The S e v e n th C i r c u i t ' s d e c i s i o n r e q u i r e s employees to f i l e premature and o f t e n u n n e c e s s a r y l a w s u i t s i n o r d e r to p r e s e r v e t h e i r r i g h t t o c h a l l e n g e C on s i s ten t w i th the overwhelming w e i g h t o f j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i t y , the Equal Emp l oyme nt O p p o r t u n i t y Commission has a d v i s e d i t s s t a f f i n i t s I n t e r p r e t a t i v e Manual t h a t the o p e ra t io n o f an i l l e g a l p r a c t i c e , such as a s e n i o r i t y system, i s a p resen t v i o l a t i o n o f T i t l e V I I from which an em p loyee may f i l e a t i m e l y c h a r g e . B u r e a u o f N a t i o n a l A f f a i r s , EEOC Compliance Manual a t Volume 2, §§ 605.6, 6 0 5 . 7 ( a ) , 6 1 6 . 1 4 ( b ) . 49 d i s c r im in a t o r y s e n i o r i t y o r o the r systems w h i c h may o r may n o t harm t h e i r j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e f u t u r e . I f an em p loyee becomes s u b j e c t to an a r g u a b ly d i s c r im in a t o r y s tan da rd , the Lorance r u l e r e q u i r e s the em p loyee to f i l e a charge w ith the EEOC w i t h in 300 days even though the s tandard may never be a p p l i e d to the detr iment o f the employee. -L In a d d i t i o n to l e a d in g to the f i l i n g o f p r e m a t u r e and u n n e c e s s a r y l a w s u i t s , th e L o r a n c e r u l e w i l l c a u se em p loyees to f i l e charges w ith the EEOC w h ich th e em p loyees might o th e rw ise not f i l e b e f o r e they have been harmed. These a d d i t i o n a l and u n n e c e s s a r y charges w i l l s e r v e t o o v e r l o a d f u r t h e r an a l r e a d y overburdened system. In f i s c a l yea r 1987 more than 115,500 charges o f d i s c r im in a t i o n were f i l e d w ith the EEOC o r w i t h s t a t e and l o c a l f a i r e m p lo y m e n t a g e n c i e s . U n i t e d S t a t e s G e n e r a l A c c o u n t i n g O f f i c e , S g u a 1 Employment O p p o r t u n i t y - EEOC and S ta te A g e n c i e s D i d N o t F u l l y I n v e s t i g a t e D isc r im in a to ry Charges (1988) a t 10. The EEOC and the l o c a l a g e n c ie s a r e unab le to keep pace w i th the cu rren t l e v e l o f charge f i l i n g s . "By the end o f f i s c a l y e a r 1987 , EEOC' s b a c k l o g had i n c r e a s e d to ( co n t in u e d . . . ) 50 P e t i t i o n e r L o r a n c e ' s s i t u a t i o n p ro v id e s a good example o f how the Seventh C i r c u i t ' s r u l e may l e ad to the f i l i n g o f u n n e c e s s a r y EEOC c h a r g e s and l a w s u i t s . Lorance became a t e s t e r in October 1973, Jo in t App . 22, and became s u b j e c t to the d i s c r im in a t o r y " t e s t e r u n iv e r s e " s e n i o r i t y system when i t was adopted in J u ly 1979. A s p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d , t h e d i s c r im in a t o r y p a r t o f the system was the s h i f t o f the m easu re o f s e n i o r i t y from p l a n t s e r v i c e to t e s t e r j o b s e r v i c e to O 1 ( . . .con t inued ) about 62,000 charges [and the b ack log o f t h e l o c a l a g e n c i e s t o ] a b o u t 5 6 , 0 0 0 c h a r g e s t h a t th e y w ere r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r o c e s s i n g u n d e r EEOC w o r k - s h a r i n g ag reem en ts . " I d . a t 17. Moreover, in ap p rox im ate ly 4 0 % to 85% o f the in s tan ce s in which the EEOC and the l o c a l a g e n c i e s c l o s e d c h a r g e s on the b a s i s o f f i n d in g s o f no r e a so n a b le cause to b e l i e v e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n occu r red , the G e n e r a l A c c o u n t i n g O f f i c e foun d th a t p a r t l y as a r e s u l t o f the l a r g e number o f c h a r g e s t h e a g e n c i e s had f a i l e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e f u l l y the charges as p rov id ed f o r by EEOC g u i d e l i n e s . I d . a t 3, 21-35. 51 g o v e r n j o b p r o m o t i o n s and d e m o t io n s . However, the agreement p rov id ed that a f t e r f i v e y e a r s o f s e r v i c e a s a t e s t e r an em ployee 's promotions and demotions would o n c e a g a i n b e b a s e d u p o n h e r p l a n t s e n i o r i t y . See n .6 , s u p r a . S in c e Ms. L o r a n c e had s e r v e d as a t e s t e r f o r f o u r y e a r s p r i o r t o h e r d e m o t i o n i n November 1982, she a lm o s t c o m p l e t e d the e n t i r e f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d u n d e r t h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y f o r f e i t u r e p r o v i s i o n w ithout b e in g harmed by a demotion. Moreover, as a r e s u l t o f any number o f o the r p o s s i b l e even ts , such a s a n o t h e r change in th e sy s tem o r a promotion to a p o s i t i o n not covered by the s e n i o r i t y agreement, see n . l , s u p r a , Ms. Lorance or the o the r p e t i t i o n e r s may n e v e r h a v e b e e n h a r m e d b y t h e 52 d i s c r im in a t o r y p r a c t i c e . ^ A w o rk e r , s h o u l d not be r e q u i r e d to use "some m ys t ic a l powers o f om n isc ien ce , " EEOC v . Westinqhouse E l e c t r i c C o r o . , 725 F . 2d a t 220, in o rd e r to determine i f she s h o u ld f i l e a cha rge because a r e c e n t ly implemented d i s c r im in a t o r y p o l i c y may in the fu tu r e l i m i t her jo b o p p o r t u n i t i e s . A w o rk e r may r e a s o n a b ly dec ide that i t i s b e t t e r n o t t o t i l t a t h y p o t h e t i c a l w i n d m i l l s . I t i s c e r t a i n l y not in the i n t e r e s t o f the e f f i c i e n t implementation o f T i t l e V I I or the a d m in i s t r a t io n o f the j u d i c i a l s y s t e m t o f o r c e w o r k e r s t o i n c re a se the burden on a l r e a d y overcrowded a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and j u d i c i a l d o c k e t s by U n l i k e t h e t e n u r e d e n i a l in R i c k s , which commenced the running o f the s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s s i n c e t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f employment " i n e v i t a b l [ y ] " f o l l o w e d f r om the d e n i a l , 449 U . S . a t 257 - 58 , th e dem ot ion o f L o ran ce or any other p a r t i c u l a r female worker was not the " i n e v i t a b l e " consequence o f the adopt ion o f the d i s c r im in a t o r y s e n i o r i t y system. o 9 53 f i l i n g premature and p o s s i b l y unnecessary charges and com p la in ts . " I t i s unwise to e n c o u r a g e l a w s u i t s b e f o r e the i n j u r i e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e v i o l a t i o n s a r e d e l i n e a t e d , or b e f o r e i t i s even c e r t a i n that i n j u r i e s w i l l occur a t a l l . " Johnson v. Genera l E l e c t r i c , 840 F .2d at 136. 2. I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n a p p ro p r i a t e to e s t a b l i s h a f i l i n g r u l e that r e q u i r e s p r e m a t u r e a n d p o s s i b l y u n n e c e s s a r y l i t i g a t i o n a b o u t t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f a newly i n s t i t u t e d p r a c t i c e s in c e Congress e s t a b l i s h e d " [ c ] o o p e ra t io n and v o l u n t a r y c o m p l i a n c e . . . a s t h e p r e f e r r e d means f o r a c h i e v i n g [ T i t l e V I I ' s ] g o a l . " A lexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. , 415 U.S . 36, 44 ( 1974) . The Lorance r u l e r e q u i r e s w o r k e r s t o c o n f r o n t im m e d i a t e l y t h e i r e m p lo y e r s and u n io n s ab o u t new ly e s t a b l i s h e d p r a c t i c e s r a th e r than attempt to accommodate or a d ju s t to 54 t h o s e p r a c t i c e s in a manner which might avo id the l o s s o f employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s and l i t i g a t i o n . F o r e x a m p le , Lorance attempted to s e rve her f i v e - y e a r p e r io d as a t e s t e r in o rde r to r e g a in her p la n t s e n i o r i t y f o r the purpose o f job movement. By s e r v in g f o u r o u t o f t h e n e c e s s a r y f i v e y e a r s b e f o r e her demotion, she a lmost succeeded i n a t t a i n i n g h e r g o a l w i t h o u t f i l i n g a l a w s u i t a g a i n s t h e r employer and union. M o r e o v e r , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e g o a l s e x p re s s e d in A le x a n d e r , workers who face p o t e n t i a l harm from a s e n i o r i t y system may a t tem p t to have the sy stem changed by n e g o t i a t i o n . However , i f th e Se ven th C i r c u i t d e c i s i o n s t a n d s , the l e s so n fo r w o r k e r s w i l l be c l e a r : I f y o u a r e con fron ted w ith an a r g u a b ly d i s c r im in a t o r y system you must sue immediately o r f o r e v e r l o s e your r i g h t to c h a l l e n g e the p r a c t i c e , 55 even i f you t h i n k t h a t you might avo id t h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y o p e r a t i o n o f t h e system. 3. Where, as here , the Company and the Un ion n e g o t i a t o r s in tended that the s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m a d v a n t a g e mal e o v e r f e m a le w o r k e r s f o r jo b o p p o r t u n i t i e s in th e " t r a d i t i o n a l l y " male t e s t e r j o b s , i t i s "anomalous to deny [by an a p p l i c a t i o n o f the charge f i l i n g requ irements o f T i t l e 23 23 The im p ra c t i c a l o p e r a t io n o f the Lorance r u l e i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the example o f an i m p o s i t i o n o f an e d u c a t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t f o r p r o m o t i o n w h i c h i s a r g u a b ly u n law fu l because i t d i s q u a l i f i e s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more b la c k s than w h ites and i t i s not " j o b r e l a t e d . " S e e , G r ig g s v . Duke Power C o . , s u p r a . A b se n t the c o n f r o n t a t i o n a l Lorance r u l e , an employee m i g h t d e c i d e t o a t t e m p t t o e a r n the r e q u i r e d e d u c a t i o n a l degree in o rd e r to q u a l i f y f o r t h e n e x t p r o m o t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y . R a t h e r than e n c o u r a g i n g accommodation, the Lorance r u l e r e q u i r e s the w o rk e r to sue h i s company r e g a rd in g the i m p o s i t i o n o f the new s tandard even b e fo r e " i t i s a p p l i e d and even though the w o r k e r mi g h t a v o i d any d i s c r i m i n a t o r y c o n s e q u e n c e s o f the p r a c t i c e by ea rn in g the e d u ca t io n a l degree p r i o r to the next promotiona l opp o r tu n i ty . 56 V I I ] any p r o s p e c t o f enforcement in the v e r y cases in which the need may be the g r e a t e s t . " J ack so n and M atheson , The C o n t i n u i n g V i o l a t i o n T h e o r y and th e C o n c e p t o f J u r i s d i c t i o n in T i t l e V I I S u i t s , 67 Geo. L . J. 811, 831 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . E s p e c i a l l y w h e r e t h e d e f e n d a n t s have i n t e n t i o n a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y system, the "de fendant [ s ] h a [v e ] no i n t e r e s t that m er i t s p r o t e c t i o n when [ t h e y ] m a i n t a i n [ ] a c o n t i n u i n g p o l i c y o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , " even though the p o l i c y a f f e c t i n g a g i v e n em p loyee was e s t a b l i s h e d more than 300 d ay s e a r l i e r than the f i l i n g o f the cha rges . Id . at 851 . Congress d id not in tend to have the c h a r g e f i l i n g requ irem ents in T i t l e V I I s e r v e a s a s h i e l d a g a i n s t any c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e o p e r a t i o n o f a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y or o the r system 57 f i l e d m ore t h a n 300 d a y s a f t e r t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e s y s t e m o r a f t e r the comola in ing employee became s u b j e c t to v.he system. In amending T i t l e V I I in 1972, C o n g r e s s e x t e n d e d the t ime p e r i o d s in s e c t io n 706( e ) f o r f i l i n g charges w ith the EEOC from 90 days to 180 days and from 180 d a y s t o 300 d ay s w here th e c h a r g e i s i n i t i a l l y f i l e d w i t h a s t a t e or l o c a l government a ge n cy . The o r im ary l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y e x o r e s s i n g t h e i n t e n t o f C o n g r e s s in amending s e c t i o n 706 (e ) i s conta ined in a s e c t i o n - b y - s e c t i o n a n a l y s i s o f the b i l l agreed to by the con fe rence committee o f t h e H ouse o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and the S e n a t e . T h i s a n a l y s i s was submitted to the S e n a te by Senator W i l l i a m s , who was Chairman o f the Senate c o n fe re e s , and to 24 24 Equal Employment Opportun ity Act of 1972, March 24, 1972, P . L . 92-261, 86 S t a t . 103. 58 t h e H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s b y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e P e rk in s , who was Chairman o f th e House c o n f e r e e s , j u s t b e f o r e the v o t e was t a k e n a p p r o v i n g the b i l l as r e p o r t e d o u t b y t h e c o n f e r e n c e o ‘Scommittee. T h i s s u b s e c t i o n [ 7 0 6 ( e ) ] as amended p ro v id e s that charges be f i l e d w i t h i n 180 d ays o f the a l l e g e d u n l a w f u l e m p lo y m e n t p r a c t i c e . C o u r t d e c i s i o n s under the p re sen t law have shown an i n c l i n a t i o n to i n t e r p r e t t h i s t ime l i m i t a t i o n so as to g i v e the a g g r i e v e d person the maximum b e n e f i t o f th e law; i t i s not i n t e n d e d t h a t s u c h c o u r t d e c i s i o n s shou ld be in any way c i r c u m s c r i b e d by the ex ten s ion o f the time l i m i t a t i o n s in t h i s s u b s e c t i o n . E x i s t i n g case law w h i c h h a s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t c e r t a i n types o f v i o l a t i o n s a re c o n t i n u i n g in n a t u r e , t h e r e b y m e a s u r i n g th e r u n n in g o f the r e q u i r e d t ime p e r i o d from the 118 Cong. R ec . 7166-70 (March 6, 1972) and 118 Cong. Rec. 7563-73 (March 8, 1972) , r e p r in t e d in Subcommittee on Labor o f t h e S e n a t e Com m ittee on L a b o r and P u b l i c W e l f a r e , L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y o f the E q u a l Employment Opportun ity Act o f 1972 ( GPO 1 9 7 2 ) a t 1 8 4 3 - 7 5 ( L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y ) . 59 l a s t o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e d i s c r im in a t i o n and not from the f i r s t o c c u r r e n c e i s cont inued , and o the r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f the c o u r t s m ax im iz ing the coverage o f the law a re not a f f e c t e d . 118 C o n g . Rec . 7167 (M arch 6, 1972 ) , r e p r in t e d in L e g i s l a t i v e H i s to ry a t 1846. As the s e c t i o n - b v - s e c t i o n a n a l y s i s o f the c o n f e r e n c e b i l l s h o w s , 26 the amended In i t s l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f the 1972 Act , the Subcommittee on Labor o f the Senate Committee on Labor and P u b l i c W e l f a r e emphasized the importance o f the s e c t i o n - b y - s e c t i o n a n a l y s i s o f t h e c o n f e r e n c e b i l l subm itted to the Senate and the House o f R e p re s e n ta t iv e s . "These a n a ly s e s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t as they r e p r e s e n t a more d e t a i l e d e x p la n a t i o n o f a l i the p r o v i s i o n s o f the b i l l as v iewed by the sponsors and l e g i s l a t i v e l e a d e r s . " L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y a t xv n . 3. Furthermore, the l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f the 1972 Act i s d i r e c t l y p e r t in e n t to t h e p r o p e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 706( e ) because s e c t i o n 706( e ) was amended and re enacted in 1972. S e e , Connect icut v . T e a l , 457 U.S. 440, 447 n. 8 ( 1982) ; F ran k s v. Bowman T ra n sp o r ta t io n Co. , 4 24 U.S. a t 764 n. 21; A lbem ar le Paper Co. v. Moody , 4 2 2 U . S . 405^ 4 2 ^ 2 1 ( 19 7 5 ) ; Johnson v . R a i lw a y E x p r e s s A g e n c y , 421 U . S . 457, 459 ( 1975) ; compare, Teamsters v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 431 U . S . at 354 n.39 ( co n t in u e d . . . ) 60 s e c t io n 706( e ) was in tended to adopt the " co n t in u in g v i o l a t i o n " a n a l y s i s whereby a v i c t i m may t i m e l y f i l e f r om t he " l a s t o 7 o c c u r r e n c e " o f the u n l a w f u l p r a c t i c e . A c c o r d i n g l y , L o r a n c e and t h e o t h e r p e t i t i o n e r s shou ld be e n t i t l e d to f i l e a t im e ly charge from the date o f the " l a s t o c c u r r e n c e " o f the d i s c r im in a t o r y system 26 26( . . . c o n t in u e d ) ( " [ T ] he s e c t i o n o f T i t l e V I I t h a t we c o n s t r u e h e r e , § 703 ( h ) , was enacted in 1964, not 1972. The v iews o f members o f a l a t e r C o n g r e s s , c o n c e r n i n g d i f f e r e n t s e c t io n s o f T i t l e V I I . . . a r e e n t i t l e d to l i t t l e i f any w e i g h t . " ) M oreover , i t i s c l e a r from the 1972 amendment to § 7 0 6 ( g ) , 42 U. S . C. § 2000e - 5 ( g ) , to p r o v id e that " [ b ] a c k pay l i a b i l i t y s h a l l not a c c r u e from a date more than two ye a r s p r i o r to the f i l i n g o f a c h a r g e , " t h a t C o n g r e s s a p p r o v e d the c o n t in u in g v i o l a t i o n p r i n c i p l e . Only by p e r m i t t i n g c o u r t s to remedy c o n t i n u i n g v i o l a t i o n s , such a s the o p e r a t i o n o f a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y system, can the C o u r t g i v e e f f e c t to b o t h th e 3 0 0 -d a y c h a r g e f i l i n g p e r i o d and the t w o - y e a r p e r i o d f o r the award o f back pay. S e e , A lb e m a r l e P a p e r Co. v . M oody , 422 U.S. at 410 n. 3. 61 which r e s u l t e d in t h e i r demotion to l o w e r - pay ing p o s i t i o n s . 4. T h i s C ou rt has r e c o g n i z e d the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f i n t e r p r e t i n g t he l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n s o f r e m e d i a l l e g i s l a t i o n s i m i l a r to T i t l e V I I to permit t i m e l y c h a l l e n g e s to the o p e r a t i o n o f c o n t i n u i n g d i s c r i m in a t o r y p r a c t i c e s even i f the p r a c t i c e s had been e s t a b l i s h e d long b e f o r e the c o v e r a g e o f the l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d . Under th e F a i r H ous ing Act o f 1968, 42 U. S . C. §§ 3601 e t seq . , a c i v i l r i g h t s s t a t u t e s i m i l a r i n p u r p o s e and d e s ign to T i t l e V I I , the Court in t e r p r e t e d the l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n 28 as p e rm i t t in g The F a i r Housing Act p r o v i s i o n , 42 U. S . C. § 3612 ( a ) , which l i k e T i t l e V I I r e q u i r e s the f i l i n g o f an a d m in i s t r a t i v e c h a r g e w i t h i n 1 8 0 d a y s o f t h e d i s c r im in a t o r y a c t , " i s comparable to the one imposed by the Age Act [and by T i t l e V I I ] . " T ay lo r v. Home Insurance Company, 777 F .2d a t 856. 62 th e f i l i n g o f a t i m e l y cha rge from the c o n t in u e d o p e r a t i o n o f a d i s c r im in a t o r y p r a c t i c e . H a v e n s R e a l t y __C o r p . v . Coleman, 455 U. S. 363, 380-81 ( 1982) . The C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t " a ' c o n t i n u i n g v i o l a t i o n ' . . . s h o u l d b e t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m one d i s c r e t e a c t o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . " I d . at 380. I f t h e r e i s a c o n t i n u i n g p r a c t i c e o f r a c i a l s t e e r i n g , a court may r e m e d y i n s t a n c e s o f d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s t e e r i n g which occurred p r i o r to the 180- day p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g an a d m in i s t r a t i v e charge so long as a t l e a s t one a p p l i c a t i o n o f the s t e e r i n g p r a c t i c e occu rred w i th in the f i l i n g p e r i o d . "Where the ch a l l en ge d v i o l a t i o n i s a c o n t i n u i n g o n e , t he s t a l e n e s s c o n c e r n [ o f s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s ] d i s a p p e a r s . " I b i d . M o r e o v e r , to " i g n o r e [ ] the c o n t in u in g n a t u r e o f t h e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n . . . 63 u n de rm in es th e b ro a d rem edia l in te n t o f Con g r e s s . . . . " I b i d . S i m i l a r l y , an i l l e g a l system f o r d i s t r i b u t i n g shoe machinery i n s t i t u t e d in 19 12 w as s u b j e c t to a t i m e l y s u i t in 1 9 5 5 . The c o n d u c t " c o n s t i t u t e d a c o n t i n u i n g v i o l a t i o n o f the Sherman Act . . . which i n f l i c t e d con t in u in g . . . harm on H a n o v e r [ t h e v i c t i m o f t h e i l l e g a l s y s t e m ] . " Hanover Shoe v . U n i t ed Shoe M a c h in e r y , I n c . , 392 U.S. 431, 502 n.15 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . Thus, " [ a j l t h o u g h Hanover could have sued in 1912 f o r the i n j u r y then b e i n g i n f l i c t e d , i t was e q u a l l y e n t i t l e d to sue in 1955. " I b i d . See a l s o , Z en ith R ad io C o rp . v . H a z e l t i n e R e s e a r c h , 401 U . S . 321, 3 3 8 - 3 9 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ( c o n t i n u i n g c o n s p i r a c y to r e s t r a i n t r a d e ) ; C o rn in g G la s s Works v . B rennan , 417 U. S. 188, 208 (1974) ( c o n t in u in g i l l e g a l pay s c a l e s ) . A d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y 64 sy stem such as the one des igned by AT&T and Loca l ,1942 v i o l a t e s the law and g i v e s r i s e to a c a u s e o f a c t i o n whenever i t s c o n t i n u i n g o p e r a t i o n h a rm s a f e m a l e e m o l o y e e j u s t a s d o e s th e c o n t i n u i n g o p e r a t i o n o f an i l l e g a l r a c i a l s t e e r i n g p r a c t i c e , m on o p o l i s t i c system, consp ira cy in r e s t r a i n t o f t r a d e , o r g en d e r -b a se d pay s y s t e m . S e e , L a y c o c k , C o n t i n u i n g V i o l a t i o n s , D i s p a r a t e I m p a c t i n Compens a t i o n and o the r T i t l e V I I I s s u e s , 49 Law and Contemp. P r o b s . 53 ( 1986) . T h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Ass 1n o f M ach in is t s v. NLRB, 3 6 2 U . S . 4 1 1 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ( " B r y a n M anufactu r ing " ) does n o t , as AT&T appears t o a r g u e , B r . i n 0pp . 7, e s t a b l i s h a c o n t r a r y r u l e f o r l a b o r c a s e s . B r y a n M an u fac tu r in g concerned a c h a l l e n g e to a union s e c u r i t y c l a u s e which was enacted at a time when the union d id not r e p r e s e n t a 65 m a j o r i t y o f th e em p loyee s in the u n i t . The on ly u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e a l l e g e d was the execu t ion o f the agreement a t a time when the u n io n l a c k e d m a j o r i t y s t a t u s . The " c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a in in g agreement and i t s e n f o r c e m e n t a r e b o t h p e r f e c t l y l a w f u l . " 362 U.S. a t 419. The C ou rt r u l e d t h a t the c l a i m o f u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e was unt im e ly under t h e N a t i o n a l L a b o r R e l a t i o n s A c t , 29 U. S . C. § 160( b) because the on ly c h a l l e n g e to the enforcement o f the union s e c u r i t y c l a u s e was based upon the s t a t u s o f the union a t the time o f the execut ion o f the c o n t ra c t . S ince a c h a l l e n g e to the method o f execut ion o f the con t rac t was no lon ge r t i m e l y , the u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e c la im was d ism is sed . 362 U.S. a t 417. I n t h i s c a s e , t h e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g p r o v i s i o n i t s e l f i s i l l e g a l , n o t j u s t t h e m anner by w h i c h i t was 66 executed . A s e n i o r i t y p r o v i s i o n which was i n t e n t i o n a l l y d e s i g n e d to d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t women i s n e i t h e r bona f i d e l a w f u l . See , s e c t i o n A, suo ra . In f l o w e r c o u r t s have a p p l i e d the T i t l e c o n t in u in g v i o l a t i o n r u l e to l a b o r cases "where the conduct c h a l l e n g e d . . . in v o lv e s a c o n t i n u i n g a nd a l l e g e d l y i m p r o p e r p r a c t i c e t h a t c a u s e s s e p a r a t e a n d r e c u r r i n g i n j u r i e s to p l a i n t i f f s . . . . " Sevako v. Anchor Motor F r e i g h t , I n c . , 792 F . 2d 570, 575 ( 6th C i r . 1986) ; Lewis v. L o c a l U n i o n N o . 100 o f L a b o r e r s 1 I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 750 F. 2d 1368, 1379-80 ( 7th C i r . 1984) . I f , f o r e x a m p le , th e on ly p r a c t i c e c h a l l e n g e d in Lorance were the e x c lu s i o n o f women from a u n io n m eet ing when the c o n t r a c t was c o n s i d e r e d , the c h a l l e n g e , l i k e the one in Bryan M a n u fa c tu r in g , would be to th e manner by w h ich the con t rac t 67 was executed . I f the r e s u l t i n g con t rac t were not d es igned to d i s c r im in a t e a g a in s t women and i f the c o n t r a c t , in f a c t , d id not d i s c r i m i n a t e , then the o p e r a t io n o f the c o n t r a c t w o u ld not be a co n t in u in g v i o l a t i o n . Women cou ld c h a l l e n g e t h e i r d i s c r im in a t o r y e x c lu s i o n from the meeting bu t not the o p e r a t i o n o f the c o n t r a c t s i n c e , a s i n 3 ry a n M a n u f a c t u r i n g , the c o n t r a c t and i t s e n fo r c e m e n t w o u ld be " p e r f e c t l y l a w f u l . " But that i s not the case in L o r a n c e . The s e n i o r i t y f o r f e i t u r e c l a u s e n e g o t ia t e d by AT&T and L o c a l 1942 was in tended to deny employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s to women. Whenever that i l l e g a l c l a u se o p e ra te s to s e r v e t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i n t e n t , th e re i s a v i o l a t i o n o f T i t l e V I I . 5. I n t h e s e c t i o n - b y - s e c t i o n a n a l y s i s o f the con fe rence committee b i l l which was enacted in to law, there was an 68 e x p l i c i t r e c o g n i t i o n th a t cou r ts should ap p ly the T i t l e V I I f i l i n g requ irements in v i e w o f th e f a c t t h a t " f r e q u e n t l y " the p e r s o n s who f i l e t h e c h a r g e s " a r e u n t ra in ed laymen." 113 Cong. R ec . 7167 (March 6, 1972) , r e p r in t e d in L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y a t 1846. In so d o ing , Congress e n d o r s e d t h i s C o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n i n a d e c i s i o n r e n d e r e d s h o r t l y b e f o r e the e n a c t m e n t o f t h e E q u a l E m p l o y m e n t Opportun ity Act o f 1972 that the c r e a t i o n o f p r o c e d u r a l " t e c h n i c a l i t i e s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e in a s t a t u t o r y schem e in w h ich laymen, u n a s s i s t e d by t r a i n e d l a w y e r s , i n i t i a t e the p r o c e s s . " Love v . P u l lm a n Co. , 404 U.S. 522, 527 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; s e e a l s o , Z i p e s v . T rans World A i r l i n e s , 455 U.S. at 397. The Se ven th C i r c u i t ' s r u l e in Lorance i s a t r ap f o r l a y p e r son s . I t i s u n d e r s t a n d a b l e t h a t a p e r s o n , such as 69 L o r a n c e , who had r e c e n t l y promoted to a t r a d i t i o n a l l y male t e s t e r job would not h a v e t h o u g h t to f i l e a c h a r g e m e r e ly b e c a u s e o f a c h a n g e in the s e n i o r i t y sy stem under which she was employed. A l a y p e r s o n n a t u r a l l y may t h i n k t o c h a l l e n g e an employment d e c i s i o n , such as a j o b demotion, which a c t u a l l y a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t s he r p o s i t i o n . I f the Se ven th C i r c u i t ' s L o r a n c e d e c i s i o n r e m a i n s u n d i s t u r b e d , then many more l a y p e r son s , l i k e L o r a n c e , Bueschen and Ki ng , w i l l f a l l in to the t r a p o f not f i l i n g charges u n t i l t h e i r j ob p o s i t i o n s a r e a f f e c t e d by d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r a c t i c e s , and many more i n t e n t i o n a l d i s c r i m in a t o r s , l i k e AT&T and L o c a l 1942, w i l l a vo id the p roper l e g a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e i r i n t e n t i o n a l d i s c r im in a t i o n . CONCLUSION The p e t i t i o n e r s r e s p e c t f u l l y reques t 70 that the Court r e v e r s e the judgment o f the S e v e n t h C i r c u i t a n d h o l d t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s f i l e d t i m e l y charges w i t h in 300 days o f the demotions caused by the o p e ra t io n o f the d i s c r im in a t o r y s e n i o r i t y system . R e s p e c t f u l l y subm itted . JULIUS LeVONNE CHAMBERS NAAC? Lega l Defense and E ducat iona l Fund, Inc . 99 Hudson S t r e e t S ix tee n th F lo o r New York, New York 10013 BARRY GOLDSTEIN* PAUL H0LTZMAN NAACP Lega l Defense and Edu ca t iona l Fund, Inc . 1275 K S t r e e t , N.W. S u i t e 301 Washington, D.C. 20005 ( 202) 632-1300 BRIDGET ARIM0ND 14 West E r i e S t r e e t Chicago , I l l i n o i s 60610 A tto rneys f o r P e t i t i o n e r s P a t r i c i a A. Lorance, et a l . * Counsel o f Record December 9, 1988 wm»mmm