Lorance v. At&t Technologies, Inc.
Headline: Court rules that employees challenging a neutrally applied seniority system for sex discrimination must file within the filing deadline from the date the system was adopted, making many late claims time-barred.
Holding: The Court affirmed that when a seniority system is facially neutral but allegedly adopted to discriminate, the deadline to file an EEOC complaint starts at the system’s adoption, so later harms are time-barred.
- Bars many late discrimination suits about seniority systems adopted years earlier.
- Requires employees to file EEOC complaints soon after a seniority change to preserve claims.
- Gives employers and unions stronger protection for long‑standing, facially neutral seniority rules.
Summary
Background
Three women who worked at an AT&T plant became testers after a 1979 contract changed how tester seniority was calculated. That new rule measured seniority by time spent as a tester rather than plantwide service. During a 1982 downturn the women were demoted because their tester seniority was low; they filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1983 and then sued AT&T and the union.
Reasoning
The Court considered when the deadline to file an EEOC charge begins for challenges to seniority systems that are neutral in form but alleged to have been adopted for discriminatory reasons. Relying on prior decisions that give special protection to bona fide seniority systems, the majority held that when a claim depends on proof that the system was intentionally adopted to discriminate, the filing deadline starts at the time the system was put in place. Because the challenged agreement was adopted in 1979 and the plaintiffs filed in 1983, the Court concluded their claims were too late and affirmed the lower courts.
Real world impact
Workers who want to challenge allegedly discriminatory changes to seniority must act promptly after the change, or risk having claims barred. Employers and unions gain stronger protection for long‑standing, facially neutral seniority rules. The decision resolves a split among lower courts about when the filing clock starts.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens concurred, accepting application of prior cases though disagreeing with some earlier precedents. Justice Marshall (joined by Brennan and Blackmun) dissented, arguing the rule unfairly forces employees to sue too early and undermines Title VII’s goals.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?