Supreme Court's pregnant pause painful for many retiring women

[question everything]

By GAIL ROSENBLUM, Star Tribune

(snip)

On May 18, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled against Hulteen and three other female employees of AT&T. Hulteen, who worked for what was then California-based Pacific Telephone and Telegraph, did what many working women did in the 1960s and 1970s: She had a baby. Because of the birth and a related medical condition requiring surgery, she missed 240 days of work.

AT&T followed its standard policy and granted Hulteen 30 days of paid maternity leave. The other 210 days -- which would have been calculated into her pension had she left for any other medical condition -- were not counted. At the time, few people batted an eye because (listen up, young parents!) it was legal to discriminate against pregnant women in the workplace, including firing them on the spot in some cases.

The plot thickened in 1979 with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which mandated that employers treat pregnancy the same as any other temporary disability. So when Hulteen retired in 1994, she assumed that AT&T would credit her for those 210 days. AT&T balked, but in "AT&T vs. Hulteen," the Ninth Circuit Court sided with her.

Last week, the Supreme Court overturned the lower-court ruling, saying that AT&T had no obligation to pay retroactively. How could the telecommunications giant be accused of pregnancy discrimination against Hulteen during the 1970s, the majority reasoned, if the discrimination law wasn't yet on the books? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who dissented along with Justice Stephen Breyer) didn't hide her frustration that these women, and countless others, were punished twice; first as young mothers, and second as retirees who will receive diminished pension benefits "for the rest of their lives."

(snip)

ttp://www.startribune.com/local/46015337.html

[question everything]

1. Kick. I have to wonder whether, with Sotomayor on the court

whether the vote would have been 6-3..

[kimmylavin]

2. Oh, for Pete's sake!

WHY does this court hate women so much???