AT&T CORPORATION V. NOREEN HULTEEN

AT&T Corporation v. Noreen Hulteen



AT&T Corporation v. Noreen Hulteen

Introduction

In AT&T v. Hulteen Justice Souter by 7-2 majority opinion holding that AT&T in the "dependency" interest in preserving the past, pregnancy discrimination law trumps Noreen Hulteen and her fellow plaintiffs have the same level of benefits to other workers with the same durability service company. This is deeply unfair decision that runs counter to the intent of Congress, and totally unnecessary.

Analysis

At oral argument Justice Souter acknowledged that the case could go in any case, because there were competing lines of authority from which the case could be viewed. Court choice to immunize AT&T conduct from liability by reviving General Electric v. Gilbert, 429 US 125 (1976), Congress repealed the decision of taking pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 provides a vivid illustration of the conservative judicial activities under the guise of "strict" application of the rule law.

There was nothing inevitable that decision. Gilbert believes that the denial of health benefits for pregnant women, but not "necessarily" gender-based discrimination, not disparate treatment of pregnant women, can never be (www.supremecourtus.gov). Moreover, after a year, Justice Rehnquist, who is the author of Gilbert wrote the majority opinion in Nashville Gas to against Satty, 434 U.S. 136 (1977) that the encumbrance of pregnant women, forcing them to lose points seniority is sex discrimination.

In this case, AT&T of pregnant workers were deprived of all but 30 days of seniority credit for the time they were out of the maternity leave, while employees on leave for other disabilities is not forfeited. The court chose to characterize this disparate treatment of pregnant women who are not providing "good" permissible under Gilbert. But it could just as easily, simply decided that he created a "burden" of illegal sex discrimination under Satty (www.law.cornell.edu).

Another choice of court was ...