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