OCTOBER TERM, 2008
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
AT&T CORP. v. HULTEEN ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 07–543. Argued December 10, 2008—Decided May 18, 2009
Petitioner companies (collectively, AT&T) long based pension calcula-
tions on a seniority system that relied on years of service minus un-
credited leave time, giving less retirement credit for pregnancy ab-
sences than for medical leave generally. In response to the ruling in
General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125, that such differential
treatment of pregnancy leave was not sex-based discrimination pro-
hibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress added
the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) to Title VII in 1978 to make
it “clear that it is discriminatory to treat pregnancy-related condi-
tions less favorably than other medical conditions,” Newport News
Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U. S. 669, 684. On the
PDA’s effective date, AT&T replaced its old plan with the Anticipated
Disability Plan, which provided the same service credit for pregnancy
leave as for other disabilities prospectively, but did not make any ret-
roactive adjustments for the pre-PDA personnel policies. Each of the
individual respondents therefore received less service credit for her
pre-PDA pregnancy leave than she would have for general disability
leave, resulting in a reduction in her total employment term and,
consequently, smaller AT&T pensions. They, along with their union,
also a respondent, filed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
charges alleging discrimination based on