As such, their rights to equal employment got infringed. According to the at&T management, the measurement of employee performance got pegged on the productive days worked. As such, consideration for pregnancy leave as a requirement did not meet levels for consideration. In this case, any leave beyond the stipulated thirty leave days did not qualify to receive service credits. The exploit of this management tool by the management was to ensure that employees worked within timelines and attendance to chores received first priority (at&T Corporation, Petitioner v. Noreen Hulteen et al., 2008).

The analysis criteria for determination of adherence to the policy involved recording and counting of the total leave days taken by an employee (Noe, 2011). The superiority of this criterion ensured that each leave day got recorded either as personal or disability leave. The only leaves available consisted of personal and disability...

Pregnancy leave got treated as personal leave, whose period of benefits ended after thirty days, while the disability leave continued to draw benefits beyond thirty days (at&T Corporation, Petitioner v. Noreen Hulteen et al., 2008).
The legal discrimination suffered by the ladies, on the basis of pregnancy, underlined the suffering of ladies at the hands of brutal employees. Ethically, the case brings to the fore the low that society fell into in denying due rights and moral standing to those who deserve (Noe 2011). The performance management tool failed to encompass all people in ensuring that justice got done to all.

References

Noe, R.A. (2011). Fundamentals of Human Resource Management. New York: McGraw-Hill

Irwin.

AT&T Corporation, Petitioner v. Noreen Hulteen et al., 2008, Retrieved on 6th November 2012

from www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-543.pdf