Brief and Argument of Attorney for Appellants

    No. 87-1428

In The

Supreme Court of ttje Unttefc states
October Term, 1987

Patricia A. Lorance, et al.,
Petitioners,

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

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

APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Julius LeVonne Chambers 
NAACP Legal Defense And 

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

Barry Goldstein*
Sheila Y. Thomas 

NAACP Legal Defense And 
Educational Fund, Inc.

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

Bridget Arimond 
14 West Erie Street 
Chicago, Illinois 60610

Attorneys for Petitioners
*Counsel of Record

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



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Case :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page

8

12-13

8 - 1 0

9 -10

7

8 

2

Passim

i



Case: Page

Morelock. v .  NCR C o r p . ,  586 
F .2d 1096 (6 th  C i r .  1 9 78 ) ,  
c e r t . d e n i e d , 441 U.S . 906 
(1979)  ............................................  5

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

United  A ir  L in e s ,  I n c .  v .
Evans, 431 U.S. 553
(1977)  ............................................  14

S t a t u t e s :

Age D i s c r i m i n a t i o n  in  
Employment Act  o f  1967,
29 U .S .C .  §§ 621 e t  s e q .  . 5

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

ii



No. 8 7 - 1 4 2 8

IN THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 

O ctob er  Term, 1987

PATRICIA A. LORANCE, e t  a l . ,

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

v s .

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

R e s p o n d e n ts .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

c o l l e c t i v e  b a r g a i n in g  p r o v i s i o n  was a new 

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

determ ined  th a t  the  "mere e x i s t e n c e "  o f  a 

d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  system does  no t  g i v e  r i s e  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c o n s i d e r e d  t im e ly  i f  t h e r e  was a c u r r e n t  

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

2 9 -3 2 .

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

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

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



4

S e v e n t h  C i r c u i t  - -  t h a t  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  

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

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

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

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

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

751 ( 1 9 80 ) ,  v a c a t e d  on o t h e r  g r o u n d s , 456 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  charge  a p p ly  depending  upon



5

w h e t h e r  t h e  t h e o r y  o f  t h e  c a s e  I s  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M ore lock  v .  NCR Corp. , 586 F .2 d  1096 (6 th

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

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

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

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

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

s y s t e m .



6

Most im p o r t a n t l y ,  a l l  o f  r e s p o n d e n t ' s  

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

beca u se  the  re sp on d en t  d id  n o t  a c co u n t  f o r  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a g e n c y ,  t h e  Equal Employment O p p or tu n ity  

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

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

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  ch a rg e s  and l a w s u i t s  must 

be f i l e d .

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



7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

s y s t e m "  was n o t  a v i o l a t i o n  o f  the  f a i r  

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

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

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

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

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

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



9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

o f  t h e  p l a i n t i f f s  were no t  " i n e v i t a b l e , "  

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

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

s e n i o r i t y  s y s t e m .  I t  i s  the  subsequent  

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

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

Bazemore , th a t  makes the  j o b  d em ot ions  in  

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

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

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

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

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

s e n i o r i t y  system  and a la w s u i t  f o l l o w i n g  

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

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

had had no a d v e r s e  e f f e c t  and may never



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

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

a s  AT&T T e c h n o l o g i e s  a d m i t s ,  t h e  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dem ot ion !  1" does  not  mean th a t  p l a i n t i f f s  

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

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

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

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

f o r f e i t u r e  ends  a f t e r  a p p r o x im a te ly  f i v e  

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

im plem ented .3

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



13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

" c u r r e n t  o p e r a t i o n "  o f  a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y

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



14

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

l e g a l i t y  o f  the  system .  United  A ir  L in e s ,  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 9 -3 2 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



15

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

t e s t e r  j o b  o r  an employee who d i d  no t  have 

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

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

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

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

s e r v e s  n e i t h e r  the  purp ose  o f  r i d d i n g  the  

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

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

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

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

a d v o c a t e s .

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

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

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

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

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

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

d i s c r i m i n a t e ,  and s e r v e s  no purp ose



16

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

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

l a w s .

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

JULIUS LeVONNE CHAMBERS 
NAACP Legal  D efense  and 

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

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

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

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

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS

* Counsel  o f  Record