Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. Brief for Petitioners
Public Court Documents
December 9, 1988
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. Brief for Petitioners, 1988. 7ffe508b-bb9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/d2f36ca9-3c91-4aac-9572-9cfcec67387c/lorance-v-att-technologies-inc-brief-for-petitioners. Accessed April 30, 2025.
Copied!
No. 87-1428
In The
S u p r e m e C o u r t o f tfjc M n t t d ) i?>tate£
October Term, 1988
PATRICIA A. LORANCE, JANICE M. KING,
and CAROL S. BUESCHEN,
Petitioners,
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 unde r T i t l e V I I o f the
C i v i l R ights 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 ow e r -p a y in g jo 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?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED .......................... i
TABLE OF C O N T E N T S ....................... H
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................. H i
CITATIONS TO OPINIONS BELOW . . 1
JURISDICTION ....................................... 2
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED . 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . 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 is io n s Make
C le a r That a Worker Harmed
by the O pera t ion o f a
D isc 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 ..................
Page
25
B. The E f f e c t i v e ana 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 3e
Perm itted To F i l e a Timely
Charge from the Date the
Worker I s Harmed toy the
Operat ion o f a D i s c r im in a
to ry S e n io r i t y System . . 48
i a i
CONCLUSION 69
IV
TA3LS OF AUTHORITIES
Cases : 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) .................................... 47
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) 46
C a l i f o r n i a Brewers A s s o c i a t i o n v.
B ryant , 444 U .S . 598 (1980) . 37
Connect icut v . T e a 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 Page
EEOC v. Westinghouse 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 ransno rta t ion
Co. , 424 U .S . 747 (1976) . . . 42, 59
Furr v. AT&T Tech no log ie s , I n c . ,
824 F .2d 1537 (10th C i r .
1987) 47
G r ig g s v . Duke Power Co . , 401
U.S . 424 (1971) 31, 55
Hanover Shoe v . United 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 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ............... 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:
Cases
Morelock v. NCR C o rp . , 586 F ,2d
1096 (6 th C i r . 1978), c e r t .
d e n i e d , 441 U .S . 906 (1979)
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), vaca 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 ay 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 1
Cases
Trans World A i r l i n e s , Inc . v.
Hard ison , 432 U .S . 63 (1977) .
Un ited A i r L i n e s , I n c . 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 aze 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 Of 1964, 42 U .S .C .
§§ 2000e e t s e q ...............................
37
17 , 40
42
47
63
25 , 45
63
45-46
57, 68
24, 61
65
Passim
Page
28 U .S .C § 1254(1) 3
V I 1 1
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) .................. 58-59,
68
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 1 v e H i s t o r y o f the Egual
Employment Opportun ity Act
o f 19 72 ( GPO 1 9 7 2 ) ...................... 58, 59,
68
Other A u t h o r i t i e s :
Bureau o f N a t i o n a l A f f a i r s ,
EEOC Compliance Manual . . . . 48
Genera l Accounting O f f i c e , Egual
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
to ry Charges (1988) .................. 49
Jackson and Matneson, The Con
t in 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 ther T i t l e V I I
I s s u e s , 49 Law and Contemn.
P robs . 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. 3UESCHEN,
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 court o f ap pea ls
i s rep o r t ed a t 827 F.2d 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 it
2
o f 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 Pe t . App. 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 p o r t e d and i s s e t out a t Pe 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 Pe 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 p p 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 o n
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 r it o f C e r t i o r a r i was f i l e d on February
26, 1988, 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 PROVISIONS 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 ro v 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 , te 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 io 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 ep 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 loyee , 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 r g a n i z 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 loym 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 loye 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 r ms , c o n d i t i o n s or
p r i v i l e g e s o f employment purstiant to
a bona f i d e s e n i o r i t y or mer 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 in t e n t io 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 la w 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 un law fu l
employment p r a c t i c e w ith 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 cy . . . , such charge
s h a l l be f i l e d , . . w i t h in th ree
hundred days a f t e r the a l l e g e d
u n l a w f u l em ploym 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
t h a t d e f e n d a n t s AT&T T ec 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 1942 ,
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 cour ts
f a i l e d to dec id e these c la ims because the
cou r 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 date 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 argue 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 des 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 le male workers w i th l e s s
s e n i o r i t y in 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 Xing and C a ro l Bueschen have beer-
em ployed f o r many y e a r s i n h o u r ly 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 Aurora , 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 i n the
M ontgom ery Works a r e d i v i d e d i n t o j o b
grades 32 through 3 9 . 1 The h igh 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 ou 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 hou 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 viewed
as men ' s j o b s . These t e s t e r jo b s have
1 T here 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 ry 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 union; (d ) employees in
the journeyman t r ad es 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 i n the 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 . " Pe 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 jo 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 beer-
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 ry 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 b y 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
Un 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 jo b 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 there were a r e d u c t i o n - i n - f o r c e .
The U n ion and the 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 con ce p t . "
The p ro p o sa l p rov id ed that a f t e r a worker
becam 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 leng 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
l eng 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 but "was p a s s e d on June 23,
19 79 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 . " P e t . App .
16 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 the t e s t e r c o n c e p t ,
Pet . App. 5a, Jo in t App. 50-56, which was
i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the 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 p t p r o v i s i o n
J 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 union meeting " i t was
mentioned that women were coming in w ith
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 . " Dep. 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 5
whereby job promotion and demotion w i th in
the 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 . Ad d . 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 th in the t e s t e r
The p - e r t in e n t s e c t i o n s o f the
ag reem en t a r e as f o l l o w s : " ( 1 ) TERM OF
EMPLOYMENT o f employees in the program,
f o r movement o f p ersonne 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 de 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 ther purposes
s h a l l be a s computed unde r the BENEFIT
PLAN." Jo in t App . 51.
Under the 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 eng 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 se was l im i t e d to f i v e y e a r s .®
At the 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 . In
F e b r u a r y 1980 p e t i t i o n e r K i n g , and in
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 . P e 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 ere 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 ] 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 TERM 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 mo t e d t o 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 Bueschen 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 ther female
workers were demoted to lower pay ing job s
even though male workers w ith l e s s p lan 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 th e 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. Pet . App.
5a.
2. W i t h i n 300 d ays o f t h e i r j o b
<■7
d e m o t io n s , L o r a n c e , Bueschen and K ing
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 , 3 on
September 20, 1983, w i t h in 90 days o f the
issuance 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 con 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 rs9 by
8 S e c t i o n 7 0 6 ( f ) , 42 U . S . C . §
2000e- 5 ( f ) .
g
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 but 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 mb 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 from
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 l 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 judgment* 10
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.
q
( . . . 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.
10 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 soonte 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 t he
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 .
Pe t . App. 33a n. 7.
16
§ 2000e - 5 ( e ) . 11 The court r u l e d that the
t i me p 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 11
11 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 un law fu l
employment p r a c t i c e occu 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 th 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
em 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 . "
P e t . App. 6a, n . 2 . W hi 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 co u r t s d id
not addres s that i s su 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 io 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 -day 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
unde 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 v
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 o f
United A i r L in e s , Inc , v . Evans , 431 U.S.
553 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . 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 act 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 t he 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 ac t 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 loyees to c o n t e s t any
s e n i o r i t y system that might some day app 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 " and " 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 foundat ion
o f T i t l e V I I . " I b i d . The court b e l i e v e d
t h a t i t had " 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 E20C
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 were 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 t h a t the c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n d id
not se rve the go 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 re 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; " f v j i e we d in that d i r e c t
and u n c lu t t e re d f a sh io n , t h e i r compla ints
were t im e ly . " Pe 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 fo r e they have been in ju r e d and
even though th e y may n e v e r be in ju r e d .
I b i d .
The Seventh C i r c u i t den ied 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
s u 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 , vo ted to g ran t r e h e a r in g en b a n c .
Pe t . 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 id e 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 the d a t e on wh 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 i n 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 , 473 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 en 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 iment 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 the 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 conf irms
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
" con 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 o ccu 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
the 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
remedia 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 to 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 h a rm .
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 ITH 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 perat 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 ays a f t e r the
a l l e g e d u n l a w f u l em p lo y m en t p r a c t i c e
o c c u r r e d ------ " (Emphasis ad ded ) ; s e e , 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 . 12
I n Z i p 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 i n 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 ] a c h w e e k ' s paycheck 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 t o a s i m i l a r l y
s i t u a t e d wh ite 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 th e f a c t that
t h i s p a t t e r n w as 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.
i 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
o p e r a t i o n o f a d i s c r im in a to ry pay system
w h i c h a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t s em p lo y m en 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 ed 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 the [ e m p lo 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 te 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 cc 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
Friday, 478 U.S. at 395-96. Like each
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 ron g . S ec 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 ent
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 loyee 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 added ) .
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 "u n 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 th e 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 l 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 th e 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 em o t io n s i n the 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 rv 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 th 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 jo b s were " t r a d i t i o n a l l y
male" j o b s , then there i s no qu 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 should 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 job 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 te 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 was 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 w h 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 in t a in 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 u n 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 im 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
the 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 tead a jo b as a c i t y d r i v e r ,
and i s a l lo w ed 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 pet 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
1970. The w h i te 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 im 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 y
s y s t e m 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 added ) .
The o p e ra 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" job 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, du r ing 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 resent
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 ay in g jobs
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 stem in t h i s c a s e w o u ld seem to f a i l
un de 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 im 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, quo t ing s e c t i o n 703 ( h ) .
13 S e c t i o n 7 0 3 ( h ) p r o v i d e s in
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 a n 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 io 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 in t e n t io n to d i s c r im in a t e because o f
race, color, religion, sex, or national o r i g 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 io n ,
and t h a t i t was n eg o t ia t e d and has been
maintained 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 conten t ions in
Lorance a re to the con t ra ry . The female
workers mainta 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 du r ing the p e r io d when the
p la n t in c luded " 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
Team 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
Wh 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 i sad van tage o f those
D 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 un law fu l
employment p r a c t i c e . T eam ste rs , s u p r a ;
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 ican * VII.
14 As i n 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 ra 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 rm under §
7 0 3 ( h ) u n l e s s i t i s a ccom pan 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 ra 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 V o 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 , the o p e r a t i o n o f a s e n i o r i t y
sy stem cannot be an u n law fu l employment
p r a c t i c e e v e n i f the system has some
d i s c r im in a t o r y consequences . " )
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 en ge as an u n 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. B ry 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 15 was p a r t o f a s e n i o r i t y system
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
( con 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 though the 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 ia t e d more than 20 yea 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 v , 434
U.S. 136 ( 1977) , the Court r u le d i l l e g a l
th e co m 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 15
15( . . . cont inued )
"temporary" employees. In o rd e r to become
a permanent employee, a temporary employee
had to 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 th e r Bryant nor Sa tty 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 yea 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 r t 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 no t
40
f o r e c l o s e a t t a c k s on the cu 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 th e 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 w h ich the
company no l o n g e r a p p l i e d . However,
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 lo 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 the 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 to ry because i t
i s the product o f a con sp i ra cy by AT&T and
Loca l 1942 to p ro te 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 jo b s in the
t e s t e r u n iv e r se which were viewed 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 there was
an " a c t u a l in ten t to d i s c r im in a t e . . . on
the p a r t o f those who n eg o t ia 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 rren t o p e ra t io n o f [ t he ]
s e n i o r i t y system[ ] . " United A i r L ines v.
Evans , 431 U.S. a t 560 .17
17 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 ic k s , 449 U . S . 250 (1980) , to conclude
t h a t the c h a r g e s were 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 that the s e c t i o n
does not p re c 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
were d i s c r i m i n a t o r i l y den ied h i r e a f t e r
the e f f e c t i v e date o f T i t l e V I I . In so
doing the Court concluded that § 703(h) i s 1
1 7 ( . . . cont inued )
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 den ied 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 yea 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 ] h e o n l y
a l l e g e d d i s c r im in a t i o n occu r red - - 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 ike 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 re n o t . " As such,
s e c t i o n 7 0 3 ( h ) d oes not " l i m i t f ] o r
q u a l i f [ y ] the r e l i e f a u th o r iz ed " by T i t l e
V I I " i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s where 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 . at 758-59.
As s e c t i o n 703(h) does not l im 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 io 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 f 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 io n 706 ( e ) .
Rather , " the th ru s t o f [ s e c t i o n 703 ( h ) ] i s
d i r e c t e d toward d e f in 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 to ry 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 en ge 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
1 Q
Supreme C o u r t on s e v e n o c c a s i o n s " has
c o n s i d e r e d 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 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 da te 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 th e 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 Co. v. Swint , supra
45
in L o r a n c e , each a p p e l l a t e cour t 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 continuous ones, g i v in 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 th e [ s y s t e m i s ]
a D o l i e d . . . . " Cook v . Pan A m e r i c a n
A i r w a y s , 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
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 govern ing 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 eq .
Cook v . Pan American World A irways , I n c . ,
771 F . 2 d 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 ioe s 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 the f i l i n g
r e q u i r e m e n t in the ADEA a f t e r the T i t l e
V I I r e q u i r e m e n t ) ; O sca r Mayer & Co. v.
E v a n s , *441 U . S . 750, 756 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . See
( con t in u ed . . . )
46
C o r o . , 586 F . 2 d 1096, 1103 ( 6 t h C l r .
1978) , 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 . A m er ic an Tob a c c o Co. , 634
F .2d 744, 751 ( 4th C l r . 1980) , v aca ted on
other grounds , 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 [ th 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 1 . The y 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 s tem 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 i l e r v . M arsh , * VII
*1 Q
( . . . cont 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 th e 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 . . . . " ) .
47
682 F . 2d 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 . West inghouse E l e c t r i c C o r p . , 7 2 5 F . 2a
211, 219 (3d C i r . 1983) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 469
U.S. 820 (1984) ; T ay lo 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 ed ic in e , 805
F .2d 528, 534 (5th C i r . 1986) ; Satz v . ITT
F in a n c ia l C o r o . , 619 F.2d 738, 743-44 (8th
C i r . 19 80 ) ; W i l l i a m s v . O w e n s - I l l i n o i s ,
In 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 v.
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 io 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
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 . . . . " ) . ^ 0
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
Implementation o f T i t l e V I I R equ ires
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 to ry S e n io 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 "u n reason 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 . 2d 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
E m ploym ent 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 th e 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 ) , 61 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 or 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 tandard , the Lorance r u l e
r e q u i r e s the em ployee 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 em p loyee .^1
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 , the L o r a n c e r u l e w i l l c au se
em p loyees to f i l e charges w ith the EEOC
w h ich the em p loyees might o the 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 year 1987 more than 115,500
charges o f d i s c r im in a t io 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 , E q u a l
Employment O p p o r t u n i ty - 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 agenc 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
( con t i nued . . . )
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 i v 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
( . . . cont 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 ey 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 ents . " I d . a t 17.
Moreover, in ap p rox im ate ly 40% 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 i n 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 o ccu 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 ided
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 ided that a f t e r ,
f i v e y e a r s o f s e r v i c e as a t e s t e r an
em ployee 's promotions and demotions would
o n c e a g a i n be b a s e d u p on 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 in 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 without b e in g harmed
by a demotion. Moreover, as a r e s u l t o f
any number o f o ther p o s s i b l e even ts , such
a s a n o t h e r change i n the system 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 ther 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 ld not be r e q u i r e d to
use "some m y s t ic a l powers o f om n isc ien ce , "
5EQC 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 l y
implemented d i s c r im in a t o r y p o l i c y may in
the fu t u r e l i m i t her job 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 . 11 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 o r 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
O p
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 rom the d e n i a l , 449 U . S . a t
257 - 58 , th e dem ot ion o f Lo rance or any
o ther 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.
53
f i l i n g premature and p o s s i b l y unnecessary
charges and com pla 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 a t 136.
2. I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y in 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 op e ra t ion
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 ion 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 .
Fo 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 fo 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 . H owever , 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 le 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 ou 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 or 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 in 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
sy s t e m .23
3. Where, as here , the Company and
the Un ion n e g o t i a t o r s intended 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 male o v e r
f e m a le w o r k e r s f o r job o p p o r t u n i t i e s in
"the 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
The im p ra c t i c a l o p e ra 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 lacks than wh ites
and i t i s not " j o b r e l a t e d . " S e e , G r iggs
^ — j ^ ke.__Ppwer Co . , s u p r a . A b s e 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 rde 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 in 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 standard 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 se q u e n c e s o f the p r a c t i c e by ea rn in g
the ed u ca t io n a l degree p r i o r to the next
promotiona l opp o r tun 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 son 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 t h 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 " d e f e n d a n t [ s ]
h a [v e ] no i n t e r e s t that m er i ts 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
th an 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 ther 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
compla in ing employee became s u b j e c t to the
system. In amending T i t l e V I I in 1972,24
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 to 300 d ays w here the 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 o r l o c a l
government agency.
The primary l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y
e x p r e s s i n g t h e i n t e n t o f C o n g re 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
ag reed 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 Eaual Employment Opportun ity Act
o f 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 v
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 fe 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
committee.
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 mp l o y me 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 the 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 should 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 i n n a t u r e , t h e r e b y
m e a s u r i n g the ru 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. Rec, 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 qua 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 y - 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 se n ta t iv e s . "These
a n a ly se 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 io n o f
a l l 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 io n 706( e ) was amended
and reenacted in 1972. S e e , Connect icut
v . T e a l , 457 U.S. 440, 447 n. 8 ( 1982) ;
F ranks v. Bowman T ra n sp o r ta t io n C o . , 424
U.S. a t 764 n. 21; A lbem arle Paper Co. v.
M o o d y , 422 U . S . 405 , 4 2 0 - 2 1 ( 1 9 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
( c o n t in u ed . . . )
60
s e c t i o 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 from th e " l a s t
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 ( . . .con t inued )
( " [ 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 § 70 6 ( g ) , 42 U . S . C . §
2 0 0 0 e - 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 y e 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 as 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 system, can the
C ou r t g i v e e f f e c t to b o th the 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 . Moody , 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 h e
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 the F a i r H ous ing Act o f
1968, 42 U .S .C. §§ 3601 et s e g . , 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
28 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
the 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 __Re 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 ■ a t 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 t h 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 h e
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
■undermines the b ro a d rem edia l in ten t o f
C o n 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
1912 was s u b j e c t to a t i m e l y s u i t in
1 9 5 5 . T he 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 inu ing . . . 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 ited Shoe
M a c h in e ry , I n c . , 392 U.S . 481, 502 n.15
( 1 9 6 8 ) . Thus, " [ a ] l t h o u g h Hanover could
have sued i n 1912 f o r th e 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 , Zen ith
R ad io Cor p . 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 lass Works v. Brennan, 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 t o 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 ha r ms a f e m a l e
e m p lo y e e j u s t a s d o e s the 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 op 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 ad e , or g en de r -b a sed 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 A s s 1n o f M ach in is ts v. NLRB,
3 6 2 U . S . 4 1 1 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ( " B r y a n
M an u fac tu r in g " ) does not, 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 ryan
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 se which was enacted at
a time when the union d id not r e p re sen t a
65
m a j o r i t y o f th e em p loyees i n 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 r t 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 untime 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 , th e 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. at 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 nor
l a w f u l . S e e , s e c t i o n A, sup ra . In f a c t ,
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 V I I
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 ch a l l en ge d . . . in v o lv e s
a c o n t i n u i n g and 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 '
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 xam p le , the 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 f rom 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 anu factu r ing, would
be to th e manner by w h ich the contrac
67
was executed . I f the r e s u l t i n g con t rac t
were not des 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 ra c t , in f a c t , d i d
not d i s c r i m i n a t e , then the o p e ra t io n o f
the c o n t r a c t w ou ld no t 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 B ryan 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 ou 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 se 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 ope 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 , there 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 co u r t s 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 the f a c t th 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
un t ra in ed laymen." 118 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 do 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 in 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 in 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. a t 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 th e 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 K i 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 job p o s i t i o n s a re 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 im in a t o r s , l i k e AT&T and
L o c a l 1942, w i l l avo 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 submitted ,
JULIUS LeVONNE CHAMBERS
NAACP L ega l Defense and
Educat 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) 682-1300
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