Leaves of Absence

Subscribe to Leaves of Absence via RSS

In a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court has held that AT&T did not violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) when it based its calculation of employees’ pensions in part on a pre- PDA accrual rule that treated pregnancy leave less favorably than other forms of disability leave. AT&T Corp v. Hulteen, No. 07-543 (May 18, 2009). The Court’s decision reversed the Ninth Circuit and confirmed the presumption that discrimination statutes will not be applied retroactively.

Background

Plaintiffs were Noreen Hulteen and three other AT&T employees who had taken pregnancy leave before April 29, 1979, the effective date of the PDA. At the time they took leave, AT&T based employee pension benefits on a seniority system (i.e., a system based on length of service) that provided less service credit for pregnancy leaves than it did for other forms of temporary disability leave. When the PDA took effect, AT&T changed its system and began to provide full service credit for pregnancy leaves. It did not, however, retroactively adjust the accrued service credits of Plaintiffs or any other employees who previously had taken pregnancy leave. Therefore, when those employees retired, they received an overall pension amount that was less than it would have been if AT&T had afforded full service credit to their pre-PDA pregnancy leaves.

Plaintiffs and their union filed suit against AT&T in the Northern District of California alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and pregnancy in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the PDA. Plaintiffs argued that it was unlawful for AT&T, in the present day, to apply a seniority-based pension system that incorporated antiquated pre-PDA accrual rules that had differentiated on the basis of pregnancy. Doing so, Plaintiffs contended, carried forward the old service credit differential so as to produce a disparate effect in the amount of the pension benefits of employees who had taken pre-PDA pregnancy leave. The district court agreed, holding that AT&T had engaged in unlawful pregnancy discrimination, and the Ninth Circuit, en banc, affirmed. Because the Ninth Circuit’s decision directly conflicted with rulings from other circuits, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split.

As of this writing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed 109 cases of the H1N1 virus, commonly known as swine flu, in the United States. The World Health Organization has confirmed 331 cases of swine flu worldwide and has raised the pandemic threat level to Phase 5 on its six-step scale (Phase 5 designation essentially means that infections from the outbreak that originated in Mexico have been jumping from person to person with relative ease). This Client Alert outlines a few of the myriad legal issues that employers may face with regard to swine flu. As every situation is different, employers are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of counsel with respect to any questions related to these issues. We are, of course, available to provide a more detailed analysis as to any of the matters discussed below or to advise on any other questions that you may have on pandemic flu planning and its implications for the workplace.

McGee v. Tucoemas Fed. Credit Union, 153 Cal. App. 4th 1351 (2007)

Kimberly McGee, a former vice president of lending for the credit union, took a leave of absence for surgery and chemotherapy after being diagnosed with breast cancer. The credit union allegedly told McGee that if she did not return to work within four months she would be fired. When McGee returned to…

Moreau v. Air France, 356 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2003)

Stephane Moreau worked as the Assistant Station Manager for Air France at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Moreau requested a 12-week leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act to assist his ill father in France. Air France denied Moreau’s request on the ground that it employed…

Opinion of Att’y Gen. Bill Lockyer, No. 02-213, 2003 WL 174019 (Jan. 24, 2003)

In this opinion, the California Attorney General determined that employees who are residents of and employed in California are not entitled to the employment-related benefits established under California Military & Veterans Code § 395.05 for leaves of absence occasioned by service in another state’s militia. The Attorney General observed that…

Humble v. Boeing Co., 305 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2002)

Su Humble, a union member who was employed as a fabrication bench mechanic for Boeing, suffered an on-the-job injury to her shoulder. After taking a series of medical leaves of absence over the course of approximately 15 months, Humble was told that there were no lightduty positions available to accommodate her alleged disability when…

Tomlinson v. Qualcomm, Inc., 97 Cal. App. 4th 934 (2002)

While working on a reduced schedule as part of a family leave of absence, Lona Tomlinson was selected for layoff and terminated. Tomlinson asserted that her termination violated the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.2, based on her contention that employees who are on family leave are “immune” from layoff…