Correspondence from Mayfield to Himmelstein
Correspondence
July 3, 1969
2 pages
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