Court: Old maternity leave doesn't count
Court Alerts
Women who took maternity leave before Congress outlawed pregnancy discrimination could be stuck with lower retirement paychecks after the Supreme Court refused to let four women sue AT&T Corp. for higher pension payments.
The high court, in a 7-2 ruling issued Monday, overturned a lower-court decision that said decades-old maternity leaves should count in determining pensions.
The court's decision "forces women to pay a high price today because their employers discriminated yesterday," said Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families.
Four AT&T Corp. employees who took maternity leave between 1968 and 1976 sued the company to get their leave time credited toward their pensions. Their pregnancies occurred before the 1979 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which barred companies from treating pregnancy leaves differently from other disability leaves.
AT&T lawyers said their pension plan was legal when the women took pregnancy leave, so they shouldn't have to recalculate their retirement benefits now. Congress did not make the Pregnancy Discrimination Act retroactive, they said, so the women should not get any extra money.
Related listings
-
Court refuses to hear medical marijuana challenges
Court Alerts 05/18/2009The Supreme Court won't hear another challenge to California's decade-old law permitting marijuana use for medical purposes. The high court on Monday refused to hear appeals from San Diego and San Bernardino counties, which say the justices have neve...
-
Court turns away appeal over Steinbeck copyrights
Court Alerts 05/18/2009The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a son of author John Steinbeck over the publishing rights to "The Grapes of Wrath" and other early works. The court said Monday it won't disturb a ruling by the federal appeals court in New York that the ri...
-
Appeals court sides with Redskins over trademark
Court Alerts 05/16/2009A federal appeals court is siding with the Washington Redskins against a group of American Indians who say the football team's trademark is racially offensive. The decision issued Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington doesn't address the ...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.