Correspondence from Caldwell to Clerk
Public Court Documents
February 10, 1972

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