Correspondence from Caldwell to Clerk

Public Court Documents
February 10, 1972

Correspondence from Caldwell to Clerk preview

3 pages

Cite this item

  • Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. Reply Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 1987. c15ed4a3-bb9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/b1f2ee23-da0a-4fd0-ba68-2e505d636a65/lorance-v-att-technologies-inc-reply-brief-in-support-of-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari. Accessed August 19, 2025.

    Copied!

    No. 87-1428

In The

Su prem e C ourt of ttjc Untteti IMatetf
October Term, 1987

Patricia A. Lorance, et al.,
Petitioners,

v.
AT&T Technologies, Inc., et al.,

Respondents.

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Julius LeVonne Chambers 
NAACP Legal Defense And 

Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street
Sixteenth Floor
New York, New York 10013

Barry Goldstein*
Sheila Y. Thomas 

NAACP Legal Defense And 
Educational Fund, Inc.

806 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 940
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 638-3278

Bridget Arimond 
14 West Erie Street 
Chicago, Illinois 60610

Attorneys for Petitioners
*Counsel of Record

PRESS OF BYRON S. ADAMS, WASHINGTON, D.C. (202) 347-8203



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Case :

Abrams v .  B a y lo r  C o l l e g e  
o f  M e d ic in e ,  805 F .2d  528 
(5 th  C i r . 1986) .................

American T ob a cco  Co. v ,  
P a t t e r s o n ,  456 U.S. 63 
(1982)  ....................................... ..

Bazemore v .  F r id a y ,  106 S.
Ct. 3000 (1986)  ......................

Delaware S t a t e  C o l l e g e  v .  
R i c k s ,  449 U.S. 250 
(1982)  ............................................

EEOC v .  W est inghouse  E l e c t r i c  
C o r p . ,  725 F .2d  211 (1 9 8 3 ) ,  
c e r t . d e n i e d , 469 U.S. 820 
(1984)  ..............................................

Furr v .  AT&T T e c h n o l o g i e s ,  
I n c . , 824 F .2d 1537 (10th  
C i r .  1987) ..................................

Johnson v .  General  E l e c t r i c ,  
840 F .2d 132 (1 s t  C i r .
1988) ..............................................

Lorance  v .  AT&T T e c h n o l o g i e s ,  
I n c . ,  827 F .2d 163 (7 th  C i r .  
1987) ..............................................

Page

8

12-13

8 - 1 0

9 -1 0

7

8 

2

Passim

i



Case : Page

M o re lo ck  v .  NCR C o r p . ,  586 
F .2d 1096 (6 th  C i r .  1 9 78 ) ,  
c e r t . d e n i e d , 441 U.S . 906 
(1979)  ............................................

P a t t e r s o n  v  American 
T ob a cco  C o . ,  634 F .2 d  744 
(4 th  C i r .  1 9 8 0 ) ,  v a c a t e d  on 
o t h e r  g ro u n d s ,  456 U.S. 63 
(1982)  ............................................

United  A ir  L in e s ,  I n c .  v .  
Evans, 431 U.S. 553 
(1977) ............................................

S t a t u t e s :

Age D i s c r i m i n a t i o n  in  
Employment Act  o f  1967,
29 U .S .C .  §§ 621 e t  s e q .  .

T i t l e  VII  o f  the  C i v i l  
R ig h ts  Act  o f  1964,
42 U .S .C .  §§ 2000 e t  s e q .

4

14

5

Passim

ii



No. 87-1428

IN THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 

O c tob er  Term, 1987

PATRICIA A. LORANCE, e t  a l . ,

P e t i t i o n e r s ,

v s  .

AT&T TECHNOLOGIES, INC., e t  a l . ,

R e s p o n d e n ts .

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR 
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

1 . The d e c i s i o n  in  Lorance  v .  AT&T 

T e c h n o l o g i e s ,  I n c . , 827 F .2d  163 (7 th  C i r .  

1 9 87 ) ,  c o n f l i c t s  w ith  t h r e e  c i r c u i t s  which 

h a v e  r u l e d  t h a t  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  s y s t e m  i s  a 

c o n t i n u i n g  v i o l a t i o n  which g i v e s  r i s e  t o  a



2
c a u s e  o f  a c t i o n  on each  o c c a s i o n  when i t  

i s  a p p l i e d ,  w i t h  on e  c i r c u i t  t h a t  h e l d  

t h a t  ea ch  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  

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  was a new 

v i o l a t i o n ,  and w i t h  a f i f t h  c i r c u i t  which  

d e term in ed  t h a t  th e  "mere e x i s t e n c e "  o f  a 

d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  system  d o e s  n o t  g i v e  r i s e  

t o  a ca use  o f  a c t i o n  u n t i l  the  system i s  

a c t u a l l y  a p p l i e d .  P e t i t i o n  a t  1 6 - 2 4 .  

R e c e n t l y ,  the  F i r s t  C i r c u i t  a n a ly z e d  the  

c o n f l i c t  and r e j e c t e d  t h e  Lorance  r u l e ,  

w h i c h  r e q u i r e s  an e m p l o y e e  t o  f i l e  an 

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  c h a r g e  b e f o r e  a c t u a l l y  

s u f f e r i n g  harm f r o m  a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  

p r a c t i c e .  " S u c h  a r e q u i r e m e n t  would be 

u n r e a s o n a b le ,  as  w e l l  as u n d e s i r a b l e  from 

a p u b l i c  p o l i c y  p e r s p e c t i v e . "  (F o o t n o t e  

o m i t t e d ) , Johnson v .  General  E l e c t r i c , 840 

F .2d 132, 136 (1 9 8 8 ) .

The a t te m p ts  o f  AT&T T e c h n o l o g i e s  t o  

e x p l a i n  away o r  l i m i t  t h e s e  c o n f l i c t s ,  in



3
f a c t ,  s e r v e  o n l y  t o  u n d e r s c o r e  them. AT&T 

a r g u e s  th a t  Lorance  i s  the  f i r s t  c a s e  in  

w h i c h  an  a p p e l l a t e  c o u r t  a p p l i e d  " t h e  

T i t l e  V I I  l i m i t a t i o n s  p e r i o d  t o  a 

c h a l l e n g e  t o  a s e n i o r i t y  s y s t e m . "  

O p p o s i t i o n  a t  8 . No o t h e r  c i r c u i t  has 

r u l e d  l i k e  Lorance  b eca u se  o t h e r  c i r c u i t s  

which have d e c i d e d  upon the  l e g a l i t y  o f  a 

s e n i o r i t y  s y s t e m  have  r o u t i n e l y  t r e a t e d  

t h e  a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  a s y s t e m  a s  a 

c o n t i n u i n g  or  p r e s e n t  v i o l a t i o n .  As shown 

by s e n i o r i t y  system c a s e s  which  t h i s  Court  

h a s  d e c i d e d ,  s u i t s  c h a l l e n g i n g  t h e  

l e g a l i t y  o f  a s e n i o r i t y  system e s t a b l i s h e d  

y e a r s  e a r l i e r  h a v e  b e e n  r e g u l a r l y  

c o n s i d e r e d  t i m e l y  i f  t h e r e  was a c u r r e n t  

a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  t h e  sy s te m .  P e t i t i o n  at  

2 9 -3 2 .

T h e  r e s p o n d e n t  a t t e m p t s  t o  

d i s t i n g u i s h  t h e  t h r e e  a p p e l l a t e  c o u r t  

d e c i s i o n s  t h a t  r u l e d  —  c o n t r a r y  t o  the



4
S e v e n t h  C i r c u i t  - -  t h a t  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 s  a r e  c o n t i n u i n g  

v i o l a t i o n s .  The Fourth  C i r c u i t  d e term in ed  

t h a t  such  system s a r e  " t r u l y  ' c o n t i n u i n g '  

v i o l a t i o n s  o f  T i t l e  V I I . "  P a t t e r s o n  v .  

A m e r i c a n  T o b a c c o  Company, 634 F .2 d  744, 

751 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,  v a c a t e d  on o t h e r  g r o u n d s , 456 

U. S .  63 ( 1 9 8 2 ) .  The r e s p o n d e n t  a s s e r t s  

th a t  P a t t e r s o n  i s  i n a p p l i c a b l e  b eca u se  the  

a p p e l l a t e  c o u r t  e r r e d  i n  a p p l y i n g  a 

d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  impact  s ta n d a rd  r a t h e r  than 

r e q u i r i n g  th a t  a s e n i o r i t y  system  may be 

h e l d  u n l a w f u l  o n l y  i f  t h e  s y s t e m  was 

c r e a t e d  o r  m a i n t a i n e d  w i th  an i n t e n t  t o  

d i s c r i m i n a t e .  O p p o s i t i o n  a t  8. In o r d e r  

t o  a v o i d  the  c o n f l i c t  between Lorance  and 

P a t t e r s o n , t h e  r e s p o n d e n t  i s  f o r c e d  t o  

r e l y  upon an u n p reced en ted  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  

o f  the  T i t l e  V II  p r o c e d u r a l  r e q u i r e m e n ts ,  

t h a t  d i f f e r e n t  s t a n d a r d s  f o r  f i l i n g  an 

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  ch a rg e  a p p ly  depend ing  upon



5
w h e t h e r  t h e  t h e o r y  o f  t h e  c a s e  i s  

d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  impact  o r  t r e a tm e n t .  See 

a l s o , n . 3 ,  i n f r a .

T h e  r e s p o n d e n t  i n c o r r e c t l y  

d i s t i n g u i s h e s  two o t h e r  s e n i o r i t y  c a s e s  

b eca u se  the  system s were c h a l l e n g e d  under 

t h e  Age D i s c r i m i n a t i o n  in  Employment Act  

and the  r u l i n g s  were d i c t a . O p p o s i t i o n  at  

8 - 9 .  F i r s t ,  t h e  C o u r t  has  a p p l i e d  the  

same s ta n d a r d s  t o  the  f i l i n g  req u irem en ts  

o f  t h e  ADEA a s  t o  t h e  T i t l e  V I I  

r e q u i r e m e n t s .  P e t i t i o n  a t  17 n . 8 .

S e c o n d ,  t h e  f a v o r a b l e  p r o c e d u r a l  r u l i n g  

f o r  t h e  p l a i n t i f f  i s  n o t  d i c t u m  i n  

M ore lock  v .  NCR C o r p . , 586 F .2d 1096 (6 th

C i r .  1 9 7 8 ) ,  c e r t ■ d e n i e d , 441 U. S .  906

( 1 9 7 9 ) ,  b e c a u s e  t h e  s y s t e m  was f o u n d  

l a w f u l .  I f  t h e  p r o c e d u r a l  r u l i n g  were  

o t h e r w i s e ,  t h e  c o u r t  w o u ld  n e v e r  have  

r e a c h e d  t h e  m e r i t s  o f  t h e  s e n i o r i t y

s y s t e m .



6
Most i m p o r t a n t l y ,  a l l  o f  r e s p o n d e n t ’ s 

a t t e m p t s  t o  a v o i d  t h e s e  c o n f l i c t s  f a i l  

b e ca u se  the  re sp o n d e n t  d id  n o t  a c c o u n t  f o r  

t h e  s t r i k i n g  new r u l e  e s t a b l i s h e d  i n  

L o r a n c e  . T h e  d e c i s i o n  i n  L o r a n c e  

e s t a b l i s h e s  t h a t  a p e r s o n  who may in  the  

f u t u r e  s u f f e r  h a r m  f r o m  a n e w l y  

im p le m e n te d  p r a c t i c e  must f i l e  a la w s u i t  

b e f o r e  her  j o b  p o s i t i o n  i s  e f f e c t e d .  F iv e  

c i r c u i t s ,  i n c l u d i n g  t h r e e  w h i c h  r u l e d  

d i r e c t l y  o n  s e n i o r i t y  s y s t e m s ,  h a v e  

e s t a b l i s h e d  a c o n t r a r y  r u l e .  The c o n f l i c t  

p l a c e s  p o t e n t i a l  v i c t i m s  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  

p r a c t i c e s  a n d  t h e  F e d e r a l  e n f o r c e m e n t  

a g e n c y ,  t h e  Equal Employment O p p o r tu n i ty  

C o m m is s io n ,  s e e  P e t i t i o n  a t  2 4 -2 8 ,  in  a 

d i f f i c u l t  p o s i t i o n  f o r  d e t e r m i n i n g  when 

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  c h a r g e s  and la w s u i t s  must

be f i l e d .

AT&T T e c h n o l o g i e s  f a i l s  t o  respond  t o



7
the  o t h e r  c o n f l i c t s . 1 P e t i t i o n  a t  2 0 -2 4 .  

C o n t r a r y  t o  t h e  a s s u m p t i o n  o f  t h e  

r e s p o n d e n t ,  t h e r e  i s  no l o g i c a l  b a s i s  f o r  

l i m i t i n g  t h e  L o r a n c e  r u l e  t o  s e n i o r i t y  

s y s t e m s .  O t h e r  p r a c t i c e s ,  s u c h  a s  t h e  

i m p o s i t i o n  o f  a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  p o l i c y  

c o n t r o l l i n g  e a r l y  r e t i r e m e n t  b e n e f i t s ,  

EEOC v .  W est in g h ou se  E l e c t r i c  C o r p . , 725

F . 2 d  211 ,  219 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ,  c e r t . d e n i e d , 469 

U . S .  820  ( 1 9 8 4 ) ,  o r  c r i t e r i a  f o r  j o b

1 In  o r d e r  t o  su p p o r t  i t s  argument 
th a t  t h e r e  i s  no c o n f l i c t ,  the  resp on d en t  
r e f e r s  t o  o t h e r  Seventh C i r c u i t  d e c i s i o n s  
w h ic h  a p p l i e d  t h e  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 .  O p p o s i t i o n  a t  1 n . l ,  8.  However, 
t h e  S ev en th  C i r c u i t  d e f i n e d  the  s c o p e  o f  
t h e  p r i o r  o p i n i o n s :  a c o n t i n u i n g
v i o l a t i o n  may o c c u r  "when an em ployer  a c t s  
p u r s u a n t  t o  a s e n i o r i t y  s y s t e m  t h a t  i s  
f a c i a l l y  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y "  o r  i f  i t  u se s  i t s  
" d i s c r e t i o n  . . .  i n  a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  
m a n n e r . "  App . 9 a .  A c c o r d i n g l y ,  i n
L o r a n c e  t h e  c i r c u i t  l i m i t e d  t h e
d e f i n i t i o n s  o f  a p r e s e n t  a c t  o f  
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  and c o n t i n u i n g  v i o l a t i o n  in  
a manner which  s q u a r e l y  c o n f l i c t s  w i th  the  
r u l i n g s  o f  o t h e r  c i r c u i t s .  I t  i s  b e s i d e  
t h e  p o i n t  t o  c o n j e c t u r e ,  a s  r e s p o n d e n t  
d o e s ,  O p p o s i t i o n  a t  8, how a n o th er  c i r c u i t  
may r e a d  S e v e n t h  C i r c u i t  o p i n i o n s  which 
were i s s u e d  p r i o r  t o  L o r a n c e .



8
a s s i g n m e n t ,  Abrams v .  B a y l o r  C o l l e g e  o f  

M e d i c i n e , 805 F .2 d  528 (5 th  C i r .  1 9 8 6 ) ,  o r  

p r o m o t i o n a l  c r i t e r i a ,  F u r r  v . AT&T 

T e c h n o l o g i e s , I n c . . 824 F .2 d  1537 (1 0 th  

C i r .  1 9 8 7 ) ,  may e f f e c t ,  j u s t  l i k e  t h e  

s e n i o r i t y  p r a c t i c e  i n  L o r a n c e , p o s s i b l e  

f u t u r e  em p loy m en t  o p p o r t u n i t i e s  w i th o u t  

any immediate j o b  co n s e q u e n ce .

2. The S e v e n t h  C i r c u i t  f a i l e d  t o  

f o l l o w  p r i o r  d e c i s i o n s  o f  t h i s  Court  by 

r u l i n g  th a t  the  a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  "a  f a c i a l l y  

n e u t r a l  b u t  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 "  was n o t  a v i o l a t i o n  o f  the  f a i r  

employment law from which a v i c t i m  c o u l d  

f i l e  a t i m e l y  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  c h a r g e .  In 

p a r t i c u l a r ,  t h i s  Court  has r u l e d  th a t  each  

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  pay system 

c r e a t e d  y e a r s  e a r l i e r  " i s  a w r o n g  

a c t i o n a b l e  under T i t l e  V I I , "  Bazemore v .



9
F r i d a y , 106 S. C t . 3000, 3006-07 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . 2

AT&T f a i l s  t o  m ention  Bazemore , the  most 

p e r t i n e n t  Supreme C o u r t  a u t h o r i t y ,  b u t  

r a t h e r  r e l i e s  upon Delaware S t a t e  C o l l e g e  

v .  R i c k s , 449 U. S.  250 ( 1 9 8 0 ) .

The f a c t u a l  s i t u a t i o n  i n  R i c k s  i s  

fu n d a m en ta l ly  d i f f e r e n t  than the  s i t u a t i o n

2 AT&T a s s e r t s  th a t  " [ t ] o  the  e x t e n t  
c o u r t s  h a v e  h e ld  th a t  ' e a c h  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  p o l i c y  ' c o n s t i t u t e s  a 
[ s e p a r a t e l y ]  a c t i o n a b l e  wrong '  th ey  have 
d o n e  s o  i n  c a s e s "  b a s e d  u p o n  t h e  
" d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  i m p a c t "  t h e o r y  o r  " i n  
w h i c h  n e u t r a l  terms have been m is a p p l i e d  
in  a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  f a s h i o n . "  O p p o s i t i o n  
at  5 - 6 .  Bazemore i s  t o  the  c o n t r a r y .  The 
Court  h e ld  th a t  a pay system a p p l i e d  in  a 
f a c i a l l y  n e u t r a l  m a n n e r  was u n l a w f u l  
b eca u se  i t  was based  upon a wage s t r u c t u r e  
t h a t  had b e e n  i n f l u e n c e d  by i n t e n t i o n a l  
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  Even though pay d e c i s i o n s  
w e r e  made on  a r a c i a l l y  n e u t r a l  b a s i s  
s i n c e  1965, the  system was i l l e g a l  beca u se  
" s o m e  p r e - e x i s t i n g  s a l a r y  d i s p a r i t i e s  
c o n t i n u e  t o  l i n g e r  o n . "  106 S.  Ct .  a t  
3006. S i m i l a r l y ,  the  s e n i o r i t y  system a t  
AT&T h a s  b e e n  a p p l i e d  i n  a f a c i a l l y  
n e u t r a l  m a n n e r  b u t  t h e  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  
r e s u l t s  o f  t h e  1979 s e n i o r i t y  change in  
t h e  s e n i o r i t y  s y s t e m  w h i c h  s t r i p p e d  
workers  o f  t h e i r  p la n t  s e n i o r i t y  c o n t in u e d  
t o  " l i n g e r  o n "  and c a u s e d  t h e  1982 j o b  
dem otions  o f  the  p l a i n t i f f s .



10
i n  L o r a n c e . P e t i t i o n  a t  3 3 .  The 

a l l e g e d l y  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  ten u re  d e c i s i o n  

l e d  t o  " a  d e l a y e d  b u t  i n e v i t a b l e "  

t e r m i n a t i o n  o f  R i c k s '  e m p lo y m e n t .  449 

U. S.  a t  2 5 7 -5 8 .  At AT&T the  j o b  dem ot ions  

o f  t h e  p l a i n t i f f s  were n o t  " i n e v i t a b l e , "  

b u t  d e p e n d e d  u p o n  t h e  c o n t i n u e d

a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  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  s y s t e m .  I t  i s  the  subsequent  

a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  the  s e n i o r i t y  system ,  l i k e  

t h e  a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  t h e  pay  s y s t e m  i n  

Bazem ore , th a t  makes the  j o b  d em ot ion s  in  

Lorance  a c u r r e n t  a c t i o n a b l e  wrong.

3. Under the  lower  c o u r t ' s  r u l e  the 

p e t i t i o n e r s  w o u l d  h a v e  h a d  t o  f i l e  

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  ch a rg e s  w i t h i n  300 days o f  

t h e  i m p o s i t i o n  o f  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  system  and a la w s u i t  f o l l o w i n g  

t h e  c o m p l e t i o n  o f  t h e  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

p r o c e s s  e v e n  though the  s e n i o r i t y  system

had had no a d v e r s e  e f f e c t  and may n ev er



11
have  had any a d v e r s e  e f f e c t  on t h e i r  j o b  

p o s i t i o n .  P e t i t i o n  a t  3 7 -3 8 .  M oreover ,  

a s  AT&T T e c h n o l o g i e s  a d m i t s ,  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  l a s t s  f o r  a p p r o x i m a t e l y  f i v e  

y e a r s  u n t i l  t h e  p e t i t i o n e r s  c o m p l e t e d  

c e r t a i n  " c o u r s e s  o f  i n s t r u c t i o n . "  

O p p o s i t i o n  a t  3 .  N e v e r t h e l e s s ,  AT&T 

a r g u e s  t h a t  " [ t ] he f a c t  p l a i n t i f f s  had 

h o p e d  t h a t  t h e  . . .  s u r r e n d e r !  ] o f  

s e n i o r i t y  r i g h t s  w o u ld  n o t  . . .  l e a d  t o  

d em ot ion !  ] "  d oes  not  mean th a t  p l a i n t i f f s  

do not  have t o  f i l e  a la w s u i t  b e f o r e  the 

s e n i o r i t y  s y s t e m  c a u s e s  t h e i r  j o b  

d em ot ion .  I d . a t  5 n . 4 .

S i n c e  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  ends  a f t e r  a p p r o x im a te ly  f i v e  

y e a r s ,  t h e  S e v e n t h  C i r c u i t  r u l e  w o u ld  

r e q u i r e  the  p l a i n t i f f s  t o  f i l e  a la w s u i t  

p r i o r  t o  any  a d v e r s e  j o b  a c t i o n  d e s p i t e  

t h e  f a c t  t h a t  t h e  l a w s u i t  m ig h t  have



12
b e c o m e  mo o t  when t h e  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  

f o r f e i t u r e  p r o v i s i o n  e n d e d  a f t e r  f i v e  

y e a r s .  I t  i s  hard t o  im agine a r u l e  more 

c o u n t e r - p r o d u c t i v e  t o  t h e  e f f i c i e n t  

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  o f  the  f a i r  employment laws 

th a n  t o  r e q u i r e  w o r k e r s  t o  f i l e  f e d e r a l  

l a w s u i t s  b e f o r e  t h e i r  j o b  p o s i t i o n s  have 

been a d v e r s e l y  a f f e c t e d  and where t h e r e  i s  

a s u b s t a n t i a l  l i k e l i h o o d  th a t  t h e i r  c la im s  

may become moot b eca u se  the  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  

p r a c t i c e  may e n d  b e f o r e  i t  i s  e v e r  

im plem en ted . 3

3 M o r e o v e r ,  t h r e e  c i r c u i t s  have  
h e l d ,  c o n t r a r y  t o  t h e  S e v e n t h  C i r c u i t ,  
t h a t  t h e  " m e r e  e x i s t e n c e "  o f  a 
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  p o l i c y  d oes  no t  p r o v i d e  the  
b a s i s  f o r  a ca u se  o f  a c t i o n .  P e t i t i o n  at  
2 2 - 2 4 .  The R e s p o n d e n t  f a i l s  t o  a d d re ss  
t h i s  c o n f l i c t  but a t tem p ts  t o  d i s t i n g u i s h  
t h i s  C o u r t ' s  d e c i s i o n  t o  the  same e f f e c t  
th a t  " [ t ] h e  a d o p t i o n  o f  a s e n i o r i t y  system 
which  has n o t  been a p p l i e d  would n o t  g i v e  
r i s e  t o  a c a u s e  o f  a c t i o n . "  A m e r i c a n  
T ob a cco  Co. v .  P a t t e r s o n , 456 U. S.  63,  69 
( 1 9 8 2 ) .  O p p o s i t i o n  a t  7 n . 6 .  The 
R e s p o n d e n t ' s  a s s e r t i o n  th a t  the  P a t t e r s o n  
r u l e  o n l y  a p p l i e s  t o  d i s p a r a t e  im p a c t  
c a s e s  f a i l s  i n  l i g h t  o f  t h e  C o u r t ' s  
a s s e r t i o n  th a t  " [ s j u c h  a p p l i c a t i o n  i s  not



13
4. T h e  r e s p o n d e n t  i m p l i c i t l y  

r e j e c t s  t h e  s t a n d a r d  o f  t h e  S e v e n t h  

C i r c u i t  by r e q u i r i n g  t h o s e  p e r s o n s  harmed 

o r  who may i n  the  f u t u r e  be harmed by 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  t o  

c h a l l e n g e  t h e  s y s t e m  w i t h i n  300 days o f  

i t s  i m p o s i t i o n .  O p p o s i t i o n  a t  7 .  The 

r e s p o n d e n t ' s  p r o p o s e d  r u l e  l i k e  t h e  

S e v e n t h  C i r c u i t  r u l e  - -  w h i c h  d o e s  n o t  

commence t h e  r u n n in g  o f  t h e  s t a t u t e  o f  

l i m i t a t i o n s  u n l e s s  t h e  w o r k e r s  w e r e  

employed in  the  a f f e c t e d  j o b  c a t e g o r y  and 

knew or  sh o u ld  have known th a t  the  system 

was d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  - -  ru n s  c o n t r a r y  t o  

t h i s  C o u r t ' s  a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  T i t l e  VII  t o  

s e n i o r i t y  sy s tem s .  A worker harmed by a 

" 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

i n f i r m  u n d e r  § 7 0 3 ( h )  u n l e s s  i t  i s  
accompanied  by a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  p u r p o s e . "  
(Emphasis a d d e d ) .  I d .  a t  70. Thus, the 
C o u r t  r e f e r r e d  t o  c a s e s ,  l i k e  L o r a n c e , 
w h i c h  i n v o l v e  t h e  a l l e g a t i o n  o f  
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  i n t e n t .



14
s e n i o r i t y  s y s t e m  may c h a l l e n g e  t h e  

l e g a l i t y  o f  the  system . U nited  A i r  L in e s ,  

I n c ,  v .  E va n s . 431 U. S.  553, 560 ( 1 9 77 ) .  

R e p e a t e d ly ,  the  Court  has d e term in ed  th a t  

a c u r r e n t  o p e r a t i o n  o f  a f a c i a l l y  n e u t r a l  

s e n i o r i t y  s y s t e m  may t r i g g e r  a f a i r  

e m p l o y m e n t  a c t i o n  t h a t  w i l l  t u r n  upon  

w h e t h e r  t h e  a d o p t i o n  o f  the  system  th a t  

o c c u r r e d  y e a r s  e a r l i e r  was a f f e c t e d  by 

i n t e n t i o n a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  P e t i t i o n  at  

29-32  .

The resp on d en t  r e j e c t s  the  a p p e l l a t e  

c o u r t ' s  s ta n d a r d  w h i l e  a t  the  same t ime i t  

a r g u e s  t h a t  t h e  C o u r t  sh o u ld  not  re v ie w  

t h e  d e c i s i o n  w h i c h  r e l i e d  u p o n  t h a t  

s t a n d a r d .  H o w e v e r ,  t h e  r e s p o n d e n t ' s  

p o s i t i o n  i s  mandated by the  f a c t  th a t  i t  

r e p e a t e d l y  c r i t i c i z e s  t h e  p e t i t i o n e r s '  

p o s i t i o n  a s  i n e v i t a b l y  l e a d i n g  t o  t h e  

l i t i g a t i o n  o f  s t a l e  c l a i m s ,  O p p o s i t i o n  a t

4 - 6  . S i n c e  u n d e r  t h e  Seventh  C i r c u i t ’ s



15
r u l e  an e m p l o y e e  t r a n s f e r r i n g  i n t o  a 

t e s t e r  j o b  o r  an em ployee  who d i d  n o t  have 

r e a s o n  t o  k n o w  t h a t  t h e  s y s t e m  was 

d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  may c h a l l e n g e  the  system ,  

the  system  may be t i m e l y  c h a l l e n g e d  y e a r s  

a f t e r  i t  i s  implemented.  The Lorance  r u l e  

s e r v e s  n e i t h e r  the  p u rp ose  o f  r i d d i n g  the  

w o rk p la ce  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  p r a c t i c e s  and 

t h e i r  e f f e c t s ,  w h i c h  t h e  p e t i t i o n e r s  

a d v o c a t e ,  n o r  t h e  p u r p o s e  o f  p r e v e n t in g  

" s t a l e "  c l a i m s ,  w h i c h  t h e  r e s p o n d e n t  

a d v o c a t e s .

The L o r a n c e  d e c i s i o n  c o n f l i c t s  w ith  

d e c i s i o n s  o f  t h i s  C o u r t  and w i t h  o t h e r  

a p p e l l a t e  d e c i s i o n s ,  u n j u s t l y  d e p r i v e s  

f e m a l e  w o r k e r s  i n  t h e  AT&T p l a n t  o f  an 

o p p o r t u n i t y  t o  c h a l l e n g e  a s e n i o r i t y  

s y s t e m  i n t e n t i o n a l l y  d e s i g n e d  t o  

d i s c r i m i n a t e ,  and s e r v e s  no p urpose



16
c o n s i s t e n t  w i t h  t h e  f a i r  and e f f i c i e n t  

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  o f  t h e  e q u a l  o p p o r t u n i t y  

l a w s .

R e s p e c t f u l l y  s u b m it te d ,

JULIUS LeVONNE CHAMBERS 
NAACP Legal  D e fen se  and 

E d u c a t io n a l  Fund, I n c .  
S i x t e e n t h  F l o o r  
99 Hudson S t r e e t  
New York, New York 10013

BARRY GOLDSTEIN*
SHEILA Y. THOMAS 
NAACP Legal  D efense  and 

E d u c a t io n a l  Fund, I n c .
806 15th S t r e e t ,  N.W. 
S u i t e  940
Washington,  D. C.  20005 
(202)  638-3278

BRIDGET ARIM0ND
14 West E r ie  S t r e e t  
C h ica g o ,  I l l i n o i s  60610

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS

* Counsel  o f  Record

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top