AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Dec 10, 2008
|May 18, 2009||7-2||Souter||OT 2008|
Disclosure: Howe & Russell co-represented the respondent.
Issue: Whether employers violate Title VII by not fully restoring service credit for pregnancy leaves taken before the 1978 passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Reversed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice David Souter on May 18, 2009.
- Opinion Recap: AT&T v. Hulteen (Eliza Presson)
- Supplemental Brief on Effect of Ledbetter Act in AT&T v. Hulteen (Kevin Russell)
- New Filing: Respondents' Brief in AT&T v. Hulteen (Eliza Presson)
- A new vote for property rights? (Lyle Denniston)
- More on AT&T v. Hulteen (Eliza Presson)
- Analysis: Reopening a very old issue (Lyle Denniston)
Briefs and DocumentsMerit briefs
- Brief for Petitioner AT&T Corporation
- Brief for Respondents Noreen Hulteen, et al.
- Reply Brief for Petitioner AT&T Corporation
- Brief for the Erisa Industry Committee in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Caitlin Borgmann, Deborah Brake, Martha Davis, Joanna Grossman, Sylvia Law, Wendy Parmet, Susan Deller Ross, Michelle Travis, Joan Williams, Wendy Williams, and Deborah Widis in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the National Women's Law Center in Support of Respondent
- Brief for AARP in Support of Respondents Urging Affirmance
- Brief for the National Employment Lawyers Association, Public Justice, P.C., and Pick Up the Pace in Support of Respondent