Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. Reply Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Public Court Documents
October 5, 1987
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. Reply Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 1987. 55fe508b-bb9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/f05bbb74-b6d9-4cb2-80c1-8f483612523b/lorance-v-att-technologies-inc-reply-brief-in-support-of-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari. Accessed December 07, 2025.
Copied!
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