United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans
431 U.S. 553 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A facially neutral, bona fide seniority system does not violate Title VII simply because it perpetuates the effects of a past, time-barred discriminatory act. A past discriminatory act for which no timely charge was filed has no present legal consequences and cannot form the basis of a continuing violation claim.
Facts:
- Carolyn Evans was employed by United Air Lines as a flight attendant from November 1966 to February 1968.
- During this time, United maintained a policy requiring female flight attendants to be unmarried.
- When Evans married in 1968, United's policy forced her to resign.
- Evans did not file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within the statutory time limit following her forced resignation.
- United later abandoned its 'no-marriage' policy.
- On February 16, 1972, United rehired Evans as a new employee.
- Upon her rehire, United's seniority system did not credit her for her prior service, treating her the same as any other employee with a break in service.
- The seniority system was neutral in its operation and did not differentiate between male and female employees who were rehired after a break in service.
Procedural Posture:
- Carolyn Evans filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in February 1973.
- After receiving a right-to-sue letter, Evans sued United Air Lines in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The District Court granted United's motion to dismiss, holding that Evans' claim was time-barred because she failed to file a charge within 90 days of her 1968 separation.
- Evans appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where a panel initially affirmed the dismissal.
- Following a Supreme Court decision in another case, the Court of Appeals granted a rehearing and unanimously reversed the District Court's dismissal.
- United Air Lines (as petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer commit a present and continuing violation of Title VII by applying a facially neutral seniority system that gives present effect to the consequences of a past discriminatory act for which no timely charge was filed?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. An employer's seniority system that is neutral in its operation does not commit a present violation of Title VII, even if it gives continuing effect to a past discriminatory act that is now time-barred. The critical question is whether a present violation exists, not whether there is a continuing impact from a past wrong. A discriminatory act for which no timely charge is filed is the legal equivalent of an act that occurred before the statute was passed; it is an unfortunate event in history with no present legal consequences. United's seniority system is neutral because it treats all rehired employees, male and female, who had a prior break in service the same. Further, because the seniority system is bona fide and not intentionally discriminatory, it is protected by § 703(h) of Title VII.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. A seniority policy that perpetuates the effects of past, post-Act discrimination constitutes a present and continuing violation of Title VII. But for her sex, Evans would have the seniority she seeks; the current system denies her rights based on a credential—continuous tenure—that she was unlawfully prevented from acquiring. The violation is continuing to this day because United continues to treat her as a new employee due to its past wrongful act. Therefore, her charge was not time-barred, as a charge for a continuing violation can be filed at any time until 180 days after the violation ceases. Her failure to file a timely charge in 1968 should only bar backpay for that period, not her right to challenge the present wrong.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the 'continuing violation' doctrine in Title VII employment discrimination cases. It establishes a clear distinction between the present effects of past discrimination and a present violation of the law. By holding that a time-barred discriminatory act is legally equivalent to a pre-statute act, the Court insulates bona fide, neutral seniority systems from challenges based on their perpetuation of past wrongs. This ruling places a heavy burden on employees to file timely charges for discrete discriminatory acts, as they cannot later use the lingering effects of those acts to revive an otherwise stale claim.
Unlock the full brief for United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans