Legal Opinion
Hulteen v. AT & T CORP.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 17, 2007No. 04-16087PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WARDLAW, Circuit Judge,
with whom Chief Judge SCHROEDER, Judges REINHARDT, HAWKINS, GRABER, McKEOWN, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, FISHER, GOULD, PAEZ, BERZON join, and with whom Judge RYMER joins as to Part II-B:
This appeal presents an issue previously decided on virtually identical facts sixteen years ago in Pallas v. Pacific Bell, 940 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1050, 112 S.Ct. 916, 116 L.Ed.2d 815 (1992). There, we held that Pacific Bell violated Title VII in calculating retirement benefits after the effective date of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (“PDA”), 42 U.S.C.…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Electronic Arts, Inc. v. United States District CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Pittman v. Oregon, Employment DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- United States v. Gonzalez-ZoteloCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- California Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. RandolphCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- AT&T Corp. v. HulteenSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.