Court: Old maternity leave doesn't count

Source: AP

16 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Women who took maternity leave before it became illegal to discriminate against pregnant women can't sue to get their leave time to count for their pensions, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The high court overturned a lower court decision that said decades-old maternity leaves should count in determining pensions.

Four AT&T Corp. employees who took maternity leave between 1968 and 1976 sued the company to get their leave time credited toward their pensions. Their pregnancies occurred before the 1979 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which barred companies from treating pregnancy leaves differently from other disability leaves.

AT&T lawyers said their pension plan was legal when the women took pregnancy leave, so they shouldn't have to recalculate their retirement benefits now. Congress did not make the Pregnancy Discrimination Act retroactive, they said, so the women should not get any extra money.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090518/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_maternity_leave

---

The case is AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, 07-543.

I feel for the ladies, but if the law was written to not be retroactive, I don't understand why they even went knocking on Justice's door. Lawyer looking to throw the dice, maybe?

:shrug:

Goose... Gander... That sort of thing.

But, you see... A ruling in favor of the workers would wreck this whole Supply-side Free-market laws-by-the-Corporations-for-the-Corporations buzz they've got going.

The very thought of the USSC ruling in favor of Working Citizens... You crack me up, UP. :rofl: :sarcasm:

am I here for your amusement???? oh yeah... I am

:hi:

with the phone companies illegally wiretapping because Bush bullied them and falsely said "I'll take care of it, don't worry," and that it was "OK."

It's not the same sort of thing at all. They should have stuck to the letter of the law, but they got bullied, like a lot of people did. It doesn't make them stellar, but it's a different kettle of fish.

like the cost of lawsuits? punitive damages?

Really?

And they probably carry liability insurance, too which would minimize their expenditures. What they really feared, I think, was loss of their customer base, as the awareness spread that they were a bunch of collaborators who listened in and RECORDED people's phone calls. That awareness is what got tamped down with this deal. The average citizen (not the politically aware ten percent) can't even tell you about that sorry chapter in our history.

The retroactivity clause ensured that the phone companies would cooperate because they knew they wouldn't be punished. It was punishment that they feared, and the government also had an interest in keeping them happy, because they'd be slow to be helpful to the government again, if Uncle Sam screwed them.

Actually, several.

But, the first that comes to mind is the arbitrary date set for "The end of the Vietnam Conflict". Originally, it was legally set to 1974. Which deprived thousands of would-be veterans of additional pension and VA benefits. After a long and drawn out court battle the USSC reset the date to 1978.

The only difference I can see here (Other than that case being largely Men seeking benefits instead of Women... But, we won't go there.) is that that was a case against the Government and not Corporations like the case in the article. (AT&T in particular.)

Edit: Fixed references.

They are both corporate retroactive benefits, to an extent (to the phone companies, so they won't be punished, and to the corporations, so they don't have to pay).

The military does that arbitrary shit all the time, to try to save a few bucks--stop loss does that, by deferring PCS costs.

They probably couldn't get consensus on the maternity law without the proscribing of retroactivity. Same deal with the phone company law--it wouldn't have flown without that "deal with the devil."

Bottom line, though, once it's written, signed, sealed and delivered, that's that.

It was earlier than the sixties and I camouflaged the pregnancy until the seventh month by wearing Pendleton jackets with my skirts. When my employer found out I was pregnant I was out the door the next Monday.
I was married and already had one child at home.
Those were the days. There was no such thing as maternity leave.

AND, at the time, the men received more pay for the same job because they were 'head of household'. When it was brought to the attention of those in charge that as a widow, one woman was head of her family and, it seemed, qualified for the extra money in her paycheck. But no. Evidently she couldn't be head of household if she was a woman, even if she was head of household. I guess we have come a long way. Darn, once I start down this 'remembering' path I just keep remembering. Hope you don't mind.

Then, they let them stay on while married, but threw them out for getting pregnant.

Kids today likely can't comprehend that kind of discrimination. The "different wages for the same job" thing used to be blatant, too--in recent years they would conceal the wage disparity, but in the old days it was out in the open.

Example: "Bob, here, will be paid forty dollars a week--he has a family to support. Susie, here--get me a cuppa coffee, honey--will get twenty five a week for doing the same job, and she'll also maintain the employee kitchen and lunchroom as part of her duties."

With no shame, either!

The excuse was that I would just get married, get pregnant, have children, then leave to stay home and take care of the children.

At one interview, when told this, I responded "I can't believe you just said that! I don't even have a date for Saturday night and you're already worried that I'm going to stay home with my children!"

Later I realized that most men in those jobs stayed a year and then moved on to another company for more pay and repeated this year after year. It was the women who were the long-term employees because we knew how hard it was to find another job and were extremely grateful to anyone who would give us a chance.

"It was the women who were the long-term employees because we knew how hard it was to find another job and were extremely grateful to anyone who would give us a chance."

Men and Women alike... I haven't figured out what the factor of discrimination is yet. But, I suspect it's "Who was yer Daddy?"

to the point where the women were making the men's test results look bad, so the training of women astronauts was summarily ended.

and when the Supreme court ruled they had to be re-hired , you still then had to quit or be fired if you got pregnant..

With the Flight attendants..the supreme court ruled they got all their back pay from the time they were fired for getting married..and of course pension was non existant ..came later ..but i believe they are credited with that time they were off after fired for getting married.

I was working in 1972, had a good 'woman's job', and wanted to buy my husband an engineering calculator for Christmas, quite new to the market. I think it was $300.00. I only had $200.00 so went to my bank and asked for a loan for $200.00. They wouldn't give it to me unless my husband signed for it.
I got the loan through the credit department at the University Book Store. I think Gloria Steinham had just had a speaking engagement at the U. So Gloria and I won that round, at least at the University.

(except those CEOs and other employees who need "retention", of course, after wrecking their companies and the whole fucking economy!)

Adam Smith didn't believe corporations should be allowed as a form of business. He was right.