By Nikita Puhalsky
At issue is whether two laws are broken with one stone. Title VII of the of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) are both being called into question by Howard Lavin and Elizabeth E. DiMichele. In anticipation of the Supreme Courts hearing of the AT&T v Hulteen case in October 2008 six decided cases with outcomes which could impact or be impacted by the Supreme Courts ruling have been reviewed. Therefore are companies responsible for correcting injurious actions to employees before there actions were made illegal.
Evans provides an example of adverse impact. While employed as a flight attendant a female employee married in contradiction to the company policy forbidding her to do so. After her dismissal policy was changed and eventually she was gained her job back. Once back to work she realized that the seniority system failed to give credit for any of her prior service. The court ruled that the historical event had no present consequence and nothing further could be done as the employee did not report her complaint in a timely manner to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However a racial discrimination case would find a different outcome.
Bazemore involved employees of the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service seeking past damages due to a discriminatory pay system. Similarly this case is also an example of adverse impact. Having been heard nine years later than Evans the Supreme Court reversed its stance regarding the awarding of damages being sought for injurious actions occurring before their outlaw. Once again time would alter the interpretation of this decision.
Ledbetter involved a female employee arguing that because the past pay system was discriminatory each paycheck after that time was affected hence her current income was not what it would have been had the law been changed earlier therefore she wanted damages. Foundation to the case was the claim that each paycheck after the act of the employer had been made illegal was a new occurrence of discrimination a claim built upon the ruling in Bazemore. As a result the Supreme Court ruled that as the pay structure was lawful the later issued checks did not extend the employees time to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
With these three cases in mind I feel that when the Supreme Court ruled in May 18 to rule in favor of AT&T a firm stance had been taking regarding present remuneration for past wrongs. What happened was wrong but allowing all those wrong to collect damages now would create a precedent with far reaching implications. All of the eligible masses who have gained protection under the law since 1964 would be due compensation. Greater wrongs have been committed in American history without reparation like slavery, taking of Indian land or the contemporary treatment of detainees in Gutamino Bay. With this in mind I begin to wonder when American’s will cease to allow past circumstances to dominate the present. Please don’t misunderstand me I do not advocate forgetting the past. It bothers me though that American’s demand payment for suffering when that suffering was the catalyst for the changed system that we enjoy today?
Works Cited
Lavin, Howard S., and Elizabeth E. DiMichele “Are Employers Required to Credit Pre-PDA Pregnancy Leaves When Calculating Retirement Benefits?.” Employee Relations Law Journal (00988898) 34.3 (2008): 105-112. Legal Collection. EBSCO. Web. 15 Oct. 2009.
431 U.S. 553 (1977)
478 U.S. 385 (1986)
127 S. Ct. 21612 (2007)
Nikita Puhalsky writes when the inspiration strikes, performs with Squishy Improv in Columbus, Ohio and searches for new material constantly through ill conceived adventures in technology, science, literature and continued studies.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Nikita_Puhalsky
http://EzineArticles.com/?Analysis—Are-Employers-Required-to-Credit-Pre-PDA-Pregnancy-Leaves-When-Calculating-Retirement?&id=3098378
