Case study methodology and applications

AT&T Corporation, Petitioner v. Noreen Hulteen et al.

According to the Supreme Court (2012), the suit got filed at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California as No. 07 -- 543, by at&T against four ladies: Noreen Hulteen, Eleanora Collet Elizabeth Snyder and Linda Porter. The argument of the case got done on the 10th of December;delivery of the ruling got done on 18th May, 2009 by Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer.

The case concerns discrimination based on gender, more specifically, pregnancy-related discrimination, against disability and personal discrimination. In at&T Corporation, Petitioner v. Noreen Hulteen et al. 2008, the violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Acts undergoes scrutiny in a case where the employee discriminates against pregnant women in the event of payment of pensions. In these cases, pregnant women got less retirement credit than that concerning medical leave. Further, consideration of pregnancy leaves as personal leaves, and award of service credits of only thirty days entails discrimination. As such, leave beyond thirty days attracted no credits.

The amendment of Title VII and passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, PDA, by the Congress in 1978 articulated that it amounted to discrimination in incidences as above. The lesser treatment of pregnancy, as compared to other medical cases, amounted to abuse of the rights of the pregnant women. At & T. complied with the Act, thereby binding itself to its terms of reference. However, the company failed to ensure that the service credits got calculated as per the Act.

This resulted in four women, the respondents, receiving less service credit less than the expectations. The four ladies then proceeded to press discriminatory charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C). In at&T Corporation, Petitioner v. Noreen Hulteen et al. 2008, Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer all agreed that discrimination indeed took place in the treatment of the respondents. 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).