Court Opinion

ID: 9852818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:37:21.485986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:35.094871
License: Public Domain

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge,
with whom Judges RYMER, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN join, dissenting:
By concluding that 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), remains good law, the majority erroneously perpetuates a circuit split with the Sixth and the Seventh Circuits.1 I believe that Pallas was wrong then and is wrong now. Because this en banc court can and should overrule Pallas and follow the Seventh Circuit’s well-reasoned decision in Ameritech Benefit Plan Committee v. Communication Workers of America, 220 F.3d 814 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1127, 121 S.Ct. 883, 148 L.Ed.2d 791 (2001), I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the sex discrimination claims in this case are timely.2
I
At the core of this dispute is AT & T Corporation’s (“AT & T”)3 Net Credit Service (“NCS”) seniority system, a concept which is not defined in Title VII. See Cal. Brewers Ass’n v. Bryant, 444 U.S. 598, 605, 100 S.Ct. 814, 63 L.Ed.2d 55 (1980). The term “seniority” connotes length of employment. Id. “A ‘seniority system’ is a scheme that, alone or in tandem with non-‘seniority’ criteria, allots to employees ever improving employment rights and benefits as their relative lengths of pertinent employment increase.” Id. at 605-06, 100 S.Ct. 814 (footnotes omitted). “[T]he principal feature of any and every ‘seniority system’ is that preferential treatment is *1016dispensed on the basis of some measure of time served in employment.” Id. at 606, 100 S.Ct. 814. “In order for any seniority system to operate at all, it has to contain ancillary rules that accomplish certain necessary functions.” Id. at 607, 100 S.Ct. 814. “[E]very seniority system must include ancillary rules that delineate how and when the seniority time clock begins ticking,” as well as other provisions that “define which passage of time will ‘count’ towards the accrual of seniority and which will not.” Id.
AT & T has such a seniority system. Pursuant to that system, AT & T maintains an NCS date for each employee (from the initial date of hire until the date of termination) that consists of that employee’s original hire date and any adjustments for periods during which no service credit is accrued pursuant to ancillary rules. AT & T moves the NCS date forward to “squeeze out” the periods of leave or breaks in service that are not credited, resulting in a later NCS date. AT & T uses the NCS date that it maintains for each employee for purposes of determining retirement benefits and other employment benefits. An earlier NCS date places an employee in a comparatively better position for employment-related determinations, including job bidding, layoffs, and eligibility for and calculation of certain retirement benefits.
Prior to August 7, 1977, AT & T’s seniority system included two ancillary rules important to this case. The first provided that an employee received only 30 days of NCS credit for personal leave, but received full credit for temporary disability leave. The second specified that pregnancy leave would be treated as personal leave. AT & T applied these two rules to calculate NCS dates for all employees who became pregnant prior to that date. At no time did AT & T apply the pregnancy leave rule to any employee who became pregnant on or after August 7,1977. With one exception,4 the record fails to establish that on or after August 7, 1977, AT & T applied the pregnancy leave rule in effect before that date to adjust or to recalculate any employee’s NCS date.
On August 7, 1977, AT & T adopted the Maternity Payment Plan (“MPP”), which supplanted the prior pregnancy leave rule. According to the MPP’s new rule, up to six months of pregnancy leave would be treated as disability leave with full NCS credit, and any pregnancy leave in excess of six months would be treated as personal leave with a maximum of 30 days of NCS credit. Employees on non-pregnancy related disability leave continued to receive full NCS credit. AT & T applied the MPP pregnancy leave rule to adjust the NCS dates for all employees who became pregnant before April 29, 1979; AT & T did not retroactively apply the MPP pregnancy leave rule to adjust the NCS dates for any employees who became pregnant before August 7, 1977. The record fails to demonstrate that AT & T applied the MPP pregnancy leave rule to adjust or to recalculate any employee’s NCS date on or after April 29, 1979.
In response to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (“PDA”), Pub.L. No. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076, on April 29, 1979 (the effective date of the PDA), AT & T adopted the Anticipated Disability Plan (“ADP”), which superseded the MPP pregnancy leave rule. The ADP provided that pregnancy leave would be treated as disability leave with full NCS credit for the entire period of pregnancy. The ADP pregnancy leave rule remains in effect in AT & T’s current NCS seniority system. *1017AT & T applies the new ADP pregnancy leave rule to adjust the NCS dates for all employees who become pregnant on or after April 29, 1979. AT & T, however, made no adjustment to the NCS dates for employees who had been subject to the MPP pregnancy leave rule or the pre-1977 pregnancy leave rule. Thus, for example, an employee who took pregnancy leave in 1980, after the effective date of the PDA, would receive full NCS seniority credit for that period of leave, but no adjustments were made to the NCS date of an employee who took pregnancy leave in 1976 and received a maximum of 30 days NCS seniority credit, or who took pregnancy leave in 1977 and received a maximum of six months and 30 days of credit.
Noreen Hulteen, Eleanora Collect, Linda Porter, and Elizabeth Snyder are all female employees of AT & T who took pregnancy leaves between 1968 and 1976, before the enactment of the PDA.5 Under AT & T’s NCS seniority system in effect at that time, Hulteen, Collect, Porter, and Snyder received only partial NCS credit for their pregnancy leaves, resulting in a later NCS date. AT & T’s subsequent calculation of their benefits or the dates of their retirement eligibility between 1994 and 2000, would have been more favorable had AT & T retroactively credited their NCS dates for the previously uncredited periods of pregnancy leave before the enactment of the PDA. They contend that AT & T discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII when AT & T determined their benefits based on the NCS dates that were unadjusted to account for uncredited pre-PDA pregnancy leave.
II
A
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, makes it an “unlawful employment practice” for any employer “to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges or employment, because of such individual's ... sex.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
In General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976), the Supreme Court held that discrimination based on pregnancy was not discrimination within the meaning of Title VII. Id. at 145-46, 97 S.Ct. 401. There, General Electric adopted an employee disability benefit plan that paid weekly nonoccupational sickness and accident benefits. Id. at 127, 97 S.Ct. 401. However, General Electric excluded from that plan’s coverage disabilities arising from pregnancy. Id. The specific issue before the Court was whether Title VII prohibited excluding pregnancy-related disabilities from an employer’s disability benefit plan. The Supreme Court recognized that pregnancy is confined to women, but reasoned that the disability benefit plan did not discriminate in violation of Title VII by excluding pregnancy-related disabilities from its coverage:
The Plan, in effect (and for all that appears), is nothing more than an insurance package, which covers some risks but excludes others. The “package” going to relevant identifiable groups we are presently concerned with — General Electric’s male and female employees— covers exactly the same categories of risk, and is facially nondiscriminatory in the sense that “there is no risk from *1018which men are protected and women are not. Likewise, there is no risk from which women are protected and men are not.” As there is no proof that the package is in fact worth more to men than to women, it is impossible to find any gender-based discriminatory effect in this scheme simply because women disabled as a result of pregnancy do not receive benefits; that is to say, gender-based discrimination does not result simply because an employer’s disability-benefits plan is less than all-inclusive.
Id. at 138-39, 97 S.Ct. 401 (internal citations and footnote omitted).
In 1978, in response to Gilbert, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076, which became effective on April 29, 1979,6 and amended Title VII to define “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” to include discrimination based on pregnancy. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). The PDA states in relevant part:
The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise...:

Id.

An individual must file charges of discrimination under Title VII within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred,” unless the employee has first instituted proceedings with a state or local agency, in which case the period is extended to 300 days. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). The dispositive issue in this case is whether Hulteen timely filed a sex discrimination action within the specified period of limitations..
As the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed, we must “identify with care the specific employment practice that is at issue” when determining whether the sex-discrimination action is timely. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2162, 2167, 167 L.Ed.2d 982 (2007) (citing Nat’l Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 110-11, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002)); see also Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 257, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980). There are three possible candidates in this case: (1) AT & T’s adoption of its pregnancy leave rules before the enactment of the PDA; (2) AT & T’s application of those leave rules to adjust Hulteen’s NCS date before the enactment of the PDA; and (3) AT & T’s calculation of Hulteen’s retirement benefits in 1994 based, in part, on the NCS date it consistently maintained for her without retroactively adjusting that date for pre-PDA pregnancy leave. The time to challenge the first and second possible employment practices, however, has long since expired. Accordingly, relying on our prior decision in Pallas, Hulteen points us to the third alternative employment practice in 1994 when AT & T declined to grant retroactive NCS credit for pre-PDA pregnancy leave before it calculated her retirement benefits.
Accepting Hulteen’s argument that such calculation in 1994 constituted a new and *1019current violation of Title VII, the majority holds that her Title VII action is timely. In so concluding, the majority perpetuates Pallas’s error by breathing new life into an expired sex discrimination claim. On virtually identical facts, the Seventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Ameritech.7 Because I believe the Seventh Circuit’s decision faithfully applies controlling Supreme Court precedents and the relevant provisions of Title VII, I would follow that court’s reasoning.
Ill
“The outcome of this case,” as the Seventh Circuit recognized, “turns on which of two competing lines of authority provide a better ‘fit’ here.” Ameritech, 220 F.3d at 822. The Seventh Circuit followed United Air Lines v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 97 S.Ct. 1885, 52 L.Ed.2d 571 (1977), and its progeny. In Pallas, on the other hand, this court followed Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 106 S.Ct. 3000, 92 L.Ed.2d 315 (1986) (per curiam). Because the majority follows Pallas today, the Bazemore and Evans line of cases deserve careful attention.
A
In Bazemore, the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (“Service”) maintained two separate, racially segregated work forces and paid black employees less than white employees prior to the enactment of Title VII. 478 U.S. at 390-91, 106 S.Ct. 3000 (Brennan, J., joined by all other Members of the Court, concurring in part). After the enactment of Title VII, the Service integrated the workforce, but the pay disparity between black employees and white employees in the same positions remained. Id. The Supreme Court held that the Service was not liable for the discriminatory acts that occurred prior to the enactment of Title VII and therefore “recovery may not be permitted for [pre-Title VII] acts of discrimination.” Id. at 395, 106 S.Ct. 3000. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the pay disparity that remained after the enactment of Title VII was unlawful because “[e]ach week’s paycheck that delivers less to a black than to a similarly situated white is a wrong actionable under Title VII, regardless of the fact that this pattern was begun prior to the effective date of Title VII.” Id. at 395-96, 106 S.Ct. 3000.
B
1
The Supreme Court’s decision in Evans represents the fountainhead for the competing line of authority. In Evans, United Air Lines (“United”) maintained a policy of refusing to allow its female flight attendants to be married. 431 U.S. at 554, 97 S.Ct. 1885. Evans married in 1968 and therefore was forced to resign pursuant to United’s no-marriage policy. Id. Previously, the Seventh Circuit held that United’s policy violated Title VII. Sprogis v. United Air Lines, 444 F.2d 1194(7th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 991, 92 S.Ct. 536, 30 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971). Evans, however, was not a party to Sprogis and failed to initiate any proceedings against United within the period of limitation for that past act of discrimination. Evans, 431 U.S. at 555, 97 S.Ct. 1885. After United ended the no-marriage policy, United rehired Evans in 1972 as a new employee, but refused to *1020give her seniority credit for any prior service with United. Id. Evans conceded that it was too late to bring an action for her forced termination, bnt asserted that “United [was] guilty of a present, continuing violation of Title VII and therefore that her claim is timely.” Id. at 557, 97 S.Ct. 1885.
Evans argued that “the seniority system gives present effect to the past illegal act and therefore perpetuates the consequences of forbidden discrimination.” Id. at 557, 97 S.Ct. 1885. Rejecting that argument, the Court emphasized that “United’s seniority system does indeed have a continuing impact on her pay and fringe benefits. But the emphasis should not be placed on mere continuity; the critical question is whether any present violation exists.” Id. at 558, 97 S.Ct. 1885 (first emphasis added). Concluding that none did, the Court explained that “[a] discriminatory act which is not made the basis for a timely charge is the legal equivalent of a discriminatory act which occurred before the statute was passed.[I]t is merely an unfortunate event in history which has no present legal consequences.” Id. at 558, 97 S.Ct. 1885.
2
The Supreme Court again embraced Evans’s reasoning in Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431. In that case, Delaware State College denied Ricks, an African American librarian, academic tenure in March 1974. Id. at 252, 101 S.Ct. 498. Adhering to its policy of not discharging immediately a junior faculty member who did not receive tenure, the College offered Ricks a nonrenewable one-year “terminal” contract that would expire on June 30, 1975, with explicit notice that his employment would end on that date. Id. at 253. Ricks filed an employment discrimination charge against the College in April 1975, alleging, inter alia, that the College unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of race in violation of Title VII. Id. at 255, 101 S.Ct. 498.
Ricks argued that the period of limitations ran from the date that his one-year terminal contract expired rather than the date when the College denied tenure. Id at 257, 101 S.Ct. 498. Rejecting Ricks’s argument, the Supreme Court held that his claim for discrimination in violation of Title VII was untimely. Id. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 498. The Court concluded that “the only alleged discrimination occurred — and the filing limitations period therefore commenced' — at the time the tenure decision was made and communicated to Ricks .... even though one of the effects of the denial of tenure — the eventual loss of a teaching position — did not occur until later.”8 Id. at 258, 101 S.Ct. 498. The Supreme Court emphasized that “[i]t is simply insufficient for Ricks to allege that his termination ‘gives present effect to the past act and therefore perpetuates the consequences of forbidden discrimination.’ ” Id. (quoting Evans, 431 U.S. at 557, 97 S.Ct. 1885).
3
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2162, 167 L.Ed.2d 982, confirms this understanding of the Evans line of authority. Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber *1021Company (“Goodyear”) from 1979 until 1998. Id. at 2165. Goodyear maintained a policy during that time of granting or denying raises for salaried employees based on their supervisors’ evaluations of their performance. Id. In 1998 Ledbetter brought an action against Goodyear, asserting, among other claims, a Title VII pay discrimination claim. Id. At trial, she “introduced evidence that during the course of her employment several supervisors had given her poor evaluations because of her sex, that as a result of these evaluations her pay was not increased as much as it would have been if she had been evaluated fairly, and that these past pay decisions continued to affect the amount of her pay throughout her employment.” Id. at 2165-66. The evidence also established that Ledbetter was earning significantly less than her male counterparts at the end of her career. Id. at 2166.
Ledbetter argued that her action was timely, pointing to two different employment practices during the applicable period of limitation as possible candidates. Id. at 2167. First, she argued that each paycheck issued during the period of limitations was a separate act of discrimination. Id. Alternatively, she argued that the 1998 decision denying her a raise “was ‘unlawful because it carried forward intentionally discriminatory disparities from prior years.’ ” Id. “In essence, she suggests that it is sufficient that discriminatory acts that occurred prior to the charging period had continuing effects during that period.” Id. The Supreme Court rejected Ledbetter’s first argument because she failed to allege actual discriminatory intent by the relevant Goodyear decisionmakers when they issued her checks or denied her a raise in 1998. Id. Furthermore, the Court rejected Ledbetter’s alternative argument, concluding that it was squarely foreclosed by the Evans line of authority. Id. The Court emphasized that the instruction from that line of authority is clear: “The EEOC charging period is triggered when a discrete unlawful practice takes place. A new violation does not occur, and a new charging period does not commence, upon the occurrence of subsequent non-diserimi-natory acts that entail adverse effects resulting from the past discrimination.” Id. at 2169. The Court specifically rejected as unsound Ledbetter’s attempt to shift the intent from the prior discriminatory employment practice to the 1998 pay decision denying her raise. Id. at 2170. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that Led-better’s claim was untimely. Id. at 2172.
C
Bazemore stands for the general proposition that an employment practice coupled with discriminatory intent within the charging period gives rise to a current violation of Title VII, even if related to past, uncharged discriminatory acts. See Ledbetter, 127 S.Ct. at 2174. The Evans-Ricks-Ledbetter line of authority stands for the proposition that an act within the charging period that gives present effect to past discriminatory acts, without more, does not give rise to a current violation. Hulteen’s case turns on whether AT & T calculated her benefits in 1994 with the requisite discriminatory intent (Bazemore) or whether that calculation simply gave effect through the NCS date of past, uncharged discriminatory acts (Evans-Ricks-Ledbetter).
In Ameritech, the Seventh Circuit found the Evans line of authority controlling because of the “fact, simplistic as it may seem, that [the] case involves computation of time in service — seniority by another name — followed by a neutral application of a benefit package to all employees with the same amount of time.” Ameritech, 220 F.3d at 823. Pallas and the majority today, on the other hand, reached the contrary conclusion, finding that Bazemore *1022was the “controlling Supreme Court precedent” for two reasons: “First, the discriminatory program which gave rise to this suit, the Early Retirement Opportunity, was instituted in 1987.... Pallas challenges the criteria adopted in 1987 to determine eligibility for the new benefit program .... Second, the net credit system used to calculate eligibility under the Early Retirement Opportunity is not facially neutral. The system used to determine eligibility facially discriminates against pregnant women.” 940 F.2d at 1327. With respect, Pallas was clearly wrong. The Supreme Court’s logic in Evans, Ricks, and Ledbetter dictates the outcome of the case before us today.
1
The Supreme Court’s most recent decision in Ledbetter confirms that under Evans “current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination.” Ledbetter, 127 S.Ct. at 2169. The charging period (here, the 180 days during which Hulteen was required to file a charge with the EEOC), “is triggered when a discrete unlawful practice takes place.” Id. Such a discrete unlawful practice requires the coalescence of two elements: (1) an employment practice (defined as “a discrete act or single ‘occurrence’ that takes place at a particular point in time”); and (2) discriminatory intent. Id. at 2169, 2171. Here, the majority concludes that the AT & T’s denial of benefits under the retirement plan in 1994 is an “employment practice.” Ante, at 1009-10. But that alone is insufficient. Ledbetter requires concurrent discriminatory intent.
a
Pallas concluded that the “NCS [seniority] system used to calculate eligibility under the [retirement plans] is not facially neutral. The system used to determine eligibility facially discriminates against pregnant women.” 940 F.2d at 1327. Today, the majority locates discriminatory intent at the point AT & T calculated Hulteen’s benefits in 1994 by embracing Pallas’s erroneous determination that the NCS seniority system is facially discriminatory and concluding that “[f|acial discrimination is ‘by its very terms’ intentional discrimination.” Ante, at 1012 (citation omitted). The majority’s position is erroneous.
AT & T’s current NCS seniority system includes a facially nondiscriminatory and neutrally applied pregnancy leave rule that grants female employees who become pregnant after the enactment of the PDA full NCS seniority credit on the same terms as employees who become temporarily disabled. The retirement benefit plan under which Hulteen received retirement benefits is also facially nondiscriminatory and neutrally applied: calculation of eligibility and benefits under that plan are determined based on an NCS date maintained for each employee. That NCS date is also facially nondiscriminatory. But the majority asserts facial discrimination by looking long ago to the pre-PDA pregnancy leave rules that AT & T lawfully applied before the enactment of the PDA to adjust the NCS dates to grant only partial seniority credit for pre-PDA pregnancy leave. The majority’s conclusion reaches too far.
The problem with the majority’s conclusion that the NCS seniority system is facially discriminatory because the NCS date reflects AT & T’s pre-PDA pregnancy leave rules is that it necessarily depends on a retroactive application of the PDA. Before the enactment of the PDA, the Supreme Court had concluded in Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343, that classifications based on pregnancy involved no facial gender-based discrimination. Id. at 134-36, 138, 97 S.Ct. 401; see also Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U.S. *1023136, 140, 98 S.Ct. 347, 54 L.Ed.2d 356 (1977) (“Petitioner’s decision not to treat pregnancy as a disease or disability for purpose of seniority retention is not on its face a discriminatory policy”). Pallas concluded that the NCS seniority system was facially discriminatory because it “distinguishes between similarly situated employees: female employees who took leave prior to 1979 due to a pregnancy-related disability and employees who took leave prior to 1979 for other temporary disabilities.” 940 F.2d at 1327. This conclusion therefore rests on a silent premise that gives impermissible retroactive effect to the PDA.
A system is facially discriminatory, of course, if it treats similarly situated employees differently. Hulteen asserts that, as a female employee who took pregnancy leave prior to the enactment of the PDA, she was treated differently from employees who took leave for other temporary disabilities during that same period. But these two groups are not similarly situated. Temporarily disabled employees were not female employees who took pregnancy leaves, but were female and male employees who took other types of disability leaves and, under the lawful seniority rules then in effect, were entitled to accrue seniority credit for the full duration of their leaves. And female employees who took pre-PDA pregnancy leaves under AT & T’s then lawful pre-PDA pregnancy leave rules accrued seniority credit only for a portion of their leaves. While this may be regrettable in hindsight, because it was then lawful to distinguish between the two reasons for leaves prior to the PDA, the two groups were not similarly situated. AT & T’s failure to award full seniority credit for pre-PDA pregnancy leaves could be labeled facially discriminatory only if employees in both groups were similarly situated. That would be true, however, only if the PDA were given impermissible retroactive effect. Because the PDA is not retroactive,9 Pallas is wrong and the majority today is mistaken in concluding that AT & T’s pre-PDA pregnancy leave rules were facially discriminatory in violation of Title VII. Accordingly, because the majority errs in concluding that the NCS seniority system is facially discriminatory in violation of Title VII, it necessarily errs in finding current discriminatory intent based on the 1994 calculation.
b
Straining to find discriminatory intent when AT & T calculated Hulteen’s retirement benefits in 1994 based on the NCS date, the majority also asserts that Hulteen satisfies that burden by pointing to a single act by AT & T in crediting another employee’s NCS date based on the pre-PDA pregnancy leave rules. Ante, at *10241012. In 2000, AT & T credited Snyder’s NCS seniority date for 30 days because previously her NCS date mistakenly had not been credited at all for her pregnancy leave in 1974. The majority extrapolates from this retroactive credit that “in the determination of benefits, AT & T does not simply rely on pre-PDA NCS calculations,” but “reviews an employee’s entire work history and affirmatively chooses to apply ‘the policy at the time’ that the leave occurred.” Ante, at 1012. Any contrary assertion, the majority contends, “is belied by this record.” Ante, at 1012. But it is the majority’s perception of discriminatory intent based on this isolated response to an error that is belied by the applicable standard of review.
While previously recognizing that “ ‘[w]e must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to[AT & T], the non-moving party, whether [there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether] the district court correctly applied the substantive law,’ ” ante, at 1005 (second alteration in original) (quoting Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004)), the majority fails to apply that standard here. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to AT & T, as we must, the letters evidencing AT & T’s crediting of Snyder’s NCS date fail to demonstrate that, “when AT & T determines benefits eligibility, it reviews an employee’s entire work history and affirmatively chooses to apply ‘the policy at the time’ that the leave occurred.” Ante, at 1012. Rather, in the light most favorable to AT & T, that evidence suggests that AT & T relies on the pre-PDA NCS calculations, but in this one case an error came to light that required it to review Snyder’s entire work history and to adjust her NCS date for a previously uncredited pre-PDA pregnancy leave. That evidence further suggests that AT & T reviewed Snyder’s service record and adjusted her NCS date in response to her request, not as a matter of course for all employees: “In preparing your claim, for service credit for the period of your maternity leave of absence for review by the Employees’ Benefit Committee, it was determined that you were not given service credit for the first 30 calendar days of your leave (as was the policy at the time).” Moreover, the parties stipulated that “whether or not Snyder’s NCS date was adjusted in the year 2000 does not affect the outcome of this [stage of the] proceeding.”
The only thing that is “ ‘too obvious to warrant extended discussion,’ ” ante, at 1012(quoting Ledbetter, 127 S.Ct. at 2173), is the majority’s far-reaching efforts to infer the requisite discriminatory intent at the time AT & T calculated and/or denied retirement benefits. Simply put, the record fails to demonstrate that AT & T acted with discriminatory intent during the charging period.
2
There is no meaningful basis for distinguishing Evans and this case, which becomes abundantly evident when the key aspects of each case are compared. In both Evans and here, the employers maintained a host of employment programs10 that determined eligibility based on a seniority system. Those benefit programs were facially nondiscriminatory and neutrally applied, but gave effect through the seniority system to past discriminatory *1025acts. Evans’s seniority was less because in early 1968 United maintained a policy that forced her to resign because she was female and because she married. Hulteen’s seniority was less because AT & T maintained a pre-PDA pregnancy leave rule that forced her to take personal leave with only partial NCS seniority credit because she was female and because she became pregnant. Because of the past acts of discrimination, Evans and Hulteen had less seniority,11 and, not surprisingly, the determinations of their benefits under those programs were adversely affected
Faced with “the question ... whether the employer is committing a second violation of Title VII by refusing to credit her with seniority for any [prior] period,” the Supreme Court concluded in Evans that “such a challenge to a neutral system may not be predicated on the mere fact that a past event which has no present legal significance has affected the calculation of seniority credit, even if the past event might at one time have justified a valid claim against the employer.” 431 U.S. at 554, 560, 97 S.Ct. 1885. Thinking itself the wiser, the majority adopts Pallas’s “contrary view,” which, with respect, should be rejected because it “substitute^] a claim for seniority credit for almost every claim which is barred by limitations.” Id. at 560, 97 S.Ct. 1885.
3
The majority repeats Pallas’s error by invoking Bazemore in this case. See ante, at 1006-07. Bazemore is simply inappo-site. First, as the Supreme Court recently emphasized in Ledbetter, “Bazemore stands for the proposition that an employer violates Title VII and triggers a new EEOC charging period whenever the employer issues a paycheck using a discriminatory pay structure. But a new Title VII violation does not occur and a new charging period is not triggered when an employer issues paychecks pursuant to a system that is ‘facially nondiscriminatory and neutrally applied.’ ” Ledbetter, 127 S.Ct. at 2174(quoting Lorance v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 490 U.S. 900, 911, 109 S.Ct. 2261, 104 L.Ed.2d 961 (1989)). As discussed above, Hulteen’s retirement benefits were calculated pursuant to a facially nondiscriminatory and neutrally applied benefits plan, which relies upon the NCS date. That date, which is the product of the NCS seniority system, gives effect to the then lawful pre-PDA pregnancy leave rules that granted only partial NCS credit for pre-PDA pregnancy leave. However, without having established discriminatory intent in 1994 when AT & T calculated benefits, Bazemore is of no help to Hulteen. As the Supreme Court emphasized in Ledbetter, “[t]he fact that precharging period discrimination adversely affects the calculation of a neutral factor (like seniority ) that is used in determining future pay does not mean that each new paycheck constitutes a new violation and restarts the EEOC charging period.” 127 S.Ct. at 2174 (emphasis added).
Second, in Bazemore the post-Title VII salary structure resulted in a fresh violation of Title VII because it was a “ ‘mere continuation ’ ” of the pre-Title VII discriminatory pay structure. Ledbetter, 127 S.Ct. at 2173(quoting Bazemore, 478 U.S. at 397 n. 6, 106 S.Ct. 3000 (Brennan, J., joined by all other Members of the Court, concurring in part)). But in this case, AT & T’s NCS seniority system is not the “mere continuation” of the pre-PDA pregnancy leave rules; indeed it was expressly amended to give full effect to pregnancy leave post-PDA. In Bazemore, a current violation existed because the Service paid black employees less than white employees for each new hour (week, month, or year) *1026of work after the enactment of Title VII. In this case, no current violation exists: AT & T grants NCS seniority credit for each period of pregnancy leave after the enactment of the PDA, on the same terms as disability-related leave. Simply put, unlike in Bazemore, AT & T’s pre-PDA pregnancy leave rules no longer apply to female employees who took pregnancy leave after the enactment of the PDA, which made such distinction based on pregnancy a violation of Title VII. Bazemore would only be analogous in this case if AT & T had continued to deny full NCS seniority credit to female employees who had taken pregnancy leave after the enactment of the PDA and attempted to defend that practice on the ground that it began before the enactment of that Act.12 But AT & T did no such thing.
Finally, the majority’s strained interpretation of Bazemore effectively imposes an unjustified burden on AT & T to remedy all acts of discrimination on the basis of pregnancy before the enactment of the PDA. Because the PDA is not retroactive,13 that is more than Congress required with the PDA. That is also more than the Supreme Court required in Bazemore. There, the Court held that “recovery may not be permitted for pre-[Title VII] acts of discrimination”; thus the Service was not required to pay retroactively the salary disparity for pre-Title VII discrimination. Bazemore, 478 U.S. at 395, 106 S.Ct. 3000(Brennan, J., joined by all other Members of the Court, concurring in part) (emphasis added). Indeed, the Supreme Court emphasized that its decision in Bazemore “in no sense gives legal effect to the pre-1972 actions, but, consistent with Evans ..., focuses on the present salary structure, which is illegal if it is a mere continuation of the [pre-Title VII] discriminatory pay structure.” Id. at 396 n. 6, 106 S.Ct. 3000. By requiring AT & T now to grant retroactive NCS seniority credit for pregnancy leave prior to the effective date of the PDA, the majority impose an entirely gratuitous burden upon AT & T to remedy the NCS seniority system with respect to all classifications based on pregnancy occurring before the enactment of the PDA. Bazemore provides no support for such arbitrary result.
D
In sum, because there is no evidence that AT & T acted with the requisite discriminatory intent in 1994 when it calculated Hulteen’s retirement benefits based in part on the NCS seniority system, Baze-more is inapposite. Without more, the NCS seniority system simply gives present effect to a past pre-PDA incident. Under Evans that pre-PDA incident is “merely an unfortunate event in history [with] no present legal consequences.” 431 U.S. at 558, 97 S.Ct. 1885. For this reason, the Supreme Court’s logic in the Evans line of authority, reinforced weeks ago in Ledbetter, controls the outcome of this case. Under that line, “[a] new violation does not occur, and a new charging period does not commence, upon the occurrence of subsequent nondiscriminatory acts that entail adverse effects resulting from the past discrimination.” Ledbetter, 127 S.Ct. at 2169 (emphasis added). The time for Hulteen to have challenged AT & T’s pre-PDA *1027pregnancy leave rules has long since expired.
IV
A
As the Seventh Circuit recognized in Ameritech, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h) “offers good reason to treat seniority systems with special care, because it specifically exempts discriminatory effects that flow from bona fide seniority systems from the definition of unlawful employment practices, as long as the differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate.” Ameritech, 220 F.3d at 823; see also Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 81, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977) (“Seniority systems ... are afforded special treatment under Title VII.”). That section states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system, or a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or to employees who work in different locations, provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It shall not be an unlawful employment practice under this subchapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of the wages or compensation paid or to be paid to employees of such employer if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of section 206(d) of Title 29.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h).
Section 2000e-2(h) provides AT & T no protection in this case if (1) AT & T’s NCS seniority system is not a “bona fide” seniority system; or (2) the differences are a result of an intention to discriminate. Neither exception bars protection of AT & T’s NCS seniority system here.
First, the Supreme Court held in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977), that an otherwise valid seniority system did not lose its bona fide character simply because its operation may perpetuate past discrimination. Id. at 353-54, 97 S.Ct. 1843. In Teamsters, the Supreme Court considered a seniority system that allegedly perpetuated the effects of pre-Title VII discrimination. Id. at 348, 97 S.Ct. 1843. The employer’s seniority system unmistakably advantaged white employees who had accumulated longer tenure because of the “employer’s prior intentional discrimination” against “Negro and Spanish-surnamed employees” before the enactment of Title VII. Id. at 349-50, 97 S.Ct. 1843. The Court stated that it “must decide, in short, whether [§ 2000e-2(h)] validates otherwise bona fide seniority systems that afford no constructive seniority to victims discriminated against prior to the effective date of Title VII.” Id. at 349, 97 S.Ct. 1843. And the Court concluded that, “[although a seniority system inevitably tends to perpetuate the effects of pre-Act discrimination in such cases, the congressional judgment [through § 2000e-2(h)] was that Title VII should not outlaw the use of existing seniority lists and thereby destroy or water down the vested seniority rights of employees simply because their employer had engaged in discrimination prior to the passage of the Act.” 431 U.S. at 352-53, 97 *1028S.Ct. 1843. Thus, AT & T’s NCS seniority system does not lose its bona fide characteristic simply because it gives effect to the pre-PDA pregnancy leave rules that granted only partial NCS credit for pre-PDA pregnancy leave.
Second, under § 2000e-2(h), “[t]o be cognizable, a claim that a seniority system has a discriminatory impact must be accompanied by proof of a discriminatory purpose.” Am. Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 69, 102 S.Ct. 1534, 71 L.Ed.2d 748 (1982). But, as the Seventh Circuit held in Ameritech, “these employees cannot show the kind of intentional discrimination that would trigger the exception to the statutory protection afforded to seniority systems” because “prior to the adoption of the PDA an authoritative Supreme Court decision had held that Title VII did not prohibit distinctions based on pregnancy.” 220 F.3d at 823 (citing Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343). Moreover, because the PDA is not retroactive, see supra n. 9, AT & T “would have no reason to think it had to reshuffle its NCS list after the Act was passed,” Ameritech, 220 F.3d at 823, and therefore the continued reliance on the unadjusted NCS date cannot constitute intentional discrimination.
B
In an effort to frustrate reliance on § 2000e-2(h), the majority simply reads that provision out of the statute in all pregnancy discrimination cases. Ante, at 1013-15. The majority points to the PDA, which states that “women affected by pregnancy, ... shall be treated the same for all employment related purposes, ... as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section § 2000e-2(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise” (the “ § 2000e-(2)(h) proviso”). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (emphasis added). While the majority’s argument has surface appeal, that proviso cannot bear the burden it attempts to place upon it.
First, the majority’s interpretation of that section completely removes the application of § 2000e-2(h) in all pregnancy discrimination suits under Title VII. Ante, at 1013-15. But Congress did not go so far. If Congress had intended wholly to prohibit the application of § 2000e-2(h) in all pregnancy discrimination cases, Congress would have expressed this intent more clearly, as it did with other provisions in the Civil Rights Act. Compare, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e)(“The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section.”); id. § 2000e-l(c)(2) (“Sections 2000e-2 and 2000e-3 of this title shall not apply with respect to the foreign operations of an employer that is a foreign person not controlled by an American employer.”).
Second, the conclusion that Congress did not intend that proviso to remove § 2000e-2(h)’s protection for bona fide seniority systems in all pregnancy discrimination cases draws further support from the context in which Congress passed the PDA. “Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, amending Title VII to include pregnancy classifications within the statutory definition of sex discrimination,” in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gilbert. See Toomey v. Clark, 876 F.2d 1433, 1437 (9th Cir.1989). By amending Title VII to define “because of sex” to include on the basis of pregnancy, the PDA “in effect overruled” Gilbert’s general holding that an employer’s disability benefit plan did not violate Title VII because it excluded pregnancy-related disabilities. Toomey, 876 F.2d at 1437. By adding the § 2000e-2(h) proviso to the *1029PDA, Congress did not intend to remove that section’s protection of bone fide seniority systems in all pregnancy discrimination actions as the majority argues, but rather to address a specific anomaly suggested in Gilbert.
In Gilbert, the Supreme Court refused to defer to the EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII to prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, because it appeared to conflict with another agency’s interpretation of the Equal Pay Act. 429 U.S. at 144-45, 97 S.Ct. 401. The last sentence of § 2000e-2(h), the so-called Bennett Amendment, was the source of the apparent conflict in Gilbert. The Bennett Amendment provides that “[i]t shall not be an unlawful employment practice under this subchapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of the wages or compensation paid or to be paid to employees of such employer if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of[the Equal Pact Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)].” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h). The Equal Pay Act, in turn, generally authorizes the payment of wages to employees at a lesser rate than the opposite sex “where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality or production; or (iv) a deferential based on any other factor other than sex” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), quoted in Gilbert, 429 U.S. at 144 n. 21, 97 S.Ct. 401.14 In Gilbert the Supreme Court interpreted the Bennett Amendment, in conjunction with an agency regulation under the Equal Pay Act, to permit under Title VII the exclusion of benefits under Title VII for pregnancy-related disabilities under an employer’s disability plan. Id. 144-45, 97 S.Ct. 401. Considering itself “pointed in diametrically opposite directions by the conflicting regulations,” the Supreme Court declined to grant deference to the EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII to prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. Id. 145-46, 97 S.Ct. 401. For these reasons, Congress added the § 2000e-2(h) proviso to foreclose the possibility raised in Gilbert that the Bennett Amendment would permit wage discrimination under Title VII on the basis of pregnancy.
In sum, contrary to the majority’s conclusion, the plain meaning of the § 2000e-2(h) proviso in the PDA and the accompanying context establish that Congress did not intend to remove the protections of § 2000e-2(h) for bona fide seniority systems in all pregnancy discrimination actions. Congress, of course, was free to excise § 2000e-2(h) with respect to pregnancy discrimination actions. But the majority reads far too much into the § 2000e-2(h) proviso in the PDA, and therefore it is the majority, and not Congress, that renders that section wholly inapplicable in such actions.
V
The majority also relies on 42 U.S.C. § 2000-5(e)(2) to shore up its conclusion that Hulteen’s sex discrimination claim is timely. Congress added § 2000-5(e)(2) to Title VII with the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, 1078-79 (Nov. 21, 1991).15 That section states in relevant part that
*1030an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to a seniority system that has been adopted for an intentionally discriminatory purpose in violation of this subchapter (whether or not that discriminatory purpose is apparent on the face of the seniority provision), when the seniority system is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to the seniority system, or when a person aggrieved is injured by the application of the seniority system or provision of the system.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(2). As the Seventh Circuit succinctly put it in Ameritech, under § 2000e-5(e)(2) “[i]f the employees are able to show intentional discrimination, their action accrues at the time they are injured by the seniority system — that is, when they are denied benefits.”16 Ameritech, 220 F.3d at 823 (emphasis added).
If that section were to apply here, Hulteen’s sex discrimination action, of course, would have been timely. For § 2000e-5(e)(2) to apply, however, Hulteen would have to establish that AT & T adopted its NCS seniority system “for an intentionally discriminatory purpose in violation of’ Title VII. The majority boldly asserts that AT & T’s seniority system intentionally discriminates against pregnant women because the NCS system “ ‘facially discriminates against pregnant women [because it] distinguishes between similarly situated employees’ ” and “[fjacial discrimination is ‘by its very terms’ intentional discrimination.” Ante, at 1012 (quoting Pallas, 940 F.2d at 1327, and Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1057 (9th Cir.2002)). But the majority simply ignores the statutory requirement that Hulteen must show such intentional discrimination at the time the seniority system was adopted.
Contrary to the majority’s assertion, § 2000-5(e)(2) cannot serve to revive Hulteen’s sex discrimination charge in this case. Hulteen cannot show that AT & T adopted the pre-PDA pregnancy leave rules at the heart of this case with an intentionally discriminatory purpose. See also Ameritech, 220 F.3d at 823 (holding that the “employees cannot show the kind of intentional discrimination that would trigger the exception to the statutory protection afforded to seniority systems”). First, the Supreme Court held in Gilbert that Title VII did not necessarily prohibit distinctions based on pregnancy before the enactment of the PDA. 429 U.S. at 145-56, 97 S.Ct. 401. There, the Supreme Court concluded that an employer’s disability benefits plan did not violate Title VII because it failed to cover pregnancy-related disabilities. Id.17 Second, the Supreme *1031Court expressly held in Gilbert that classifications based on pregnancy were not facially discriminatory. Id. at 134-36, 138, 97 S.Ct. 401; see also Satty, 434 U.S. at 140, 98 S.Ct. 347(“Petitioner’s decision not to treat pregnancy as a disease or disability for purposes of seniority retention is not on its face a discriminatory policy.”); supra pp. 1022-24. AT & T adopted the pregnancy leave rules at the core of this case before the PDA and changed those rules prospectively upon the enactment of the PDA in full compliance with the statute that changed the operative playing field previously defined by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, in light of these authoritative Supreme Court precedents, Hulteen cannot establish that AT & T adopted those pre-PDA pregnancy leave rules for an intentionally discriminatory purpose in violation of Title VII. See Ameritech, 220 F.3d at 823. Absent a showing of discriminatory intent at that time, § 2000e-5(e)(2) does not apply in this case.
VI
As Judge Dumbauld lamented in his dissent to Pallas, we consider “ 'a melancholy tale [o]f things done long ago, and ill-done.’ ” 940 F.2d at 1327 (Dumbauld, J., dissenting) (quoting John Ford, The Lover’s Melancholy). Because Pallas invented a timely Title VII violation where the determination of benefits simply gave present effect to past, unchallenged acts, contrary to Supreme Court authority, it must be overruled. Because the majority today erroneously embraces Pallas and perpetuates a circuit split with the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, I must respectfully dissent.

. Compare Pallas, 940 F.2d at 1327, with Ameritech Benefit Plan Comm. v. Commc’n Workers of Am., 220 F.3d 814 (7th Cir.2000), and Leffman v. Sprint Corp., 481 F.3d 428, 433 (6th Cir.2007). No circuit has followed our decision in Pallas.

. The majority devotes considerable attention to whether intervening Supreme Court authority is "clearly irreconcilable” with our prior decision in Pallas. Ante, at 1007-10. That standard governs whether a three-judge panel of our court is free to reexamine the holding of prior circuit precedent. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Here, of course, we sit as an en banc court. If Pallas is wrongly decided, we are free to overrule it even if subsequent authorities are not "clearly irreconcilable.” See id. at 902 (O’Scannlain, J., concurring in part) ("The en banc court, however, is unencumbered by any obligation to follow the decision of a three-judge panel, and therefore is free to do what ... [a] panel could not.”); see also Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1149 n. 3 (9th Cir.2007) ("Ordinarily, panels cannot overrule a circuit precedent; that power is reserved to the circuit court sitting en banc.”). I turn directly to that inquiry.

. For sake of convenience, I refer throughout this dissent to the employer as AT & T, even though AT & T was a successor in interest to Pacific Telephone and Telegraph ("PT & T”) after the former Bell system was broken up in 1984. The difference in corporate identity does not affect the outcome of this case.

. In 2000, AT & T credited Elizabeth Snyder's NCS seniority with 30 days because the previous NCS date mistakenly had not been adjusted earlier for her pregnancy leave in 1974. See infra pp. 1023-24.

. For the sake of convenience, I will focus specifically on Hulteen's sex discrimination claim throughout the dissent. Except where expressly noted, the reasoning with respect to that claim applies equally to the other employees’ claims.

. "The amendment to Title VII became effective on the date of its enactment, October 31, 1978, but its requirements did not apply to any then-existing fringe benefit program until 180 days after enactment — April 29, 1979.” Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669, 671 n. 2, 103 S.Ct. 2622, 77 L.Ed.2d 89 (1983).

. The majority contends that in Maki v. Allete, Inc., 383 F.3d 740 (8th Cir.2004), the Eighth Circuit rejected an analysis similar to that found in Ameritech. Ante, at 1012 n. 8. But that case is quite different from Ameritech and the one before us today. Unlike in Maki, Hulteen has not established that, after the enactment of the PDA, AT & T adopted a new seniority rule to bridge prior periods of employment for an intentionally discriminatory purpose.

. I note that, according to the parties' joint stipulation of facts, Hulteen (as well as the other plaintiffs) knew that AT & T granted only partial NCS credit at the time of her pre-PDA pregnancy leave, was aware that her unadjusted NCS seniority dated traveled with her from PT & T to AT & T in 1984, and periodically received documents throughout her employment containing the unadjusted NCS seniority date. See also Ledbetter, 127 S.Ct. at 2177 & n. 10.

. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 258 n. 10, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994) ("[I]n amending Title VII to bar discrimination on the basis of pregnancy in 1978, Congress provided: 'Except as provided in subsection (b), the amendment made by this Act shall be effective on the date of enactment.’ The only Courts of Appeals to consider whether the 1978 amendments applied to pending cases concluded that they did not. If we assume that Congress was familiar with those decisions, its choice of language in § 402(a) would imply nonretroactivity.” (citations omitted)); Ameritech, 220 F.3d at 823(recognizing that the PDA has not been treated as retroactive); Whitehead v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 187 F.3d 1184, 1193 (10th Cir.1999) (concluding that the PDA is not retroactive); Wambheim v. J.C. Penney Co., 642 F.2d 362, 363 n. 1 (9th Cir.1981) (concluding that the PDA did not apply in a case where the facts occurred before 1978); Fields v. Bolger, 723 F.2d 1216, 1219 n. 4 (6th Cir.1984) (noting that the PDA "was intended to be prospective only in application”); Schwabenbauer v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. of Olean, 667 F.2d 305, 310 n. 7 (2d Cir.1981) (concluding the PDA is not retroactive); Condit v. United Air Lines, Inc., 631 F.2d 1136, 1139-40 (4th Cir.1980) (same).

. In Evans, the seniority system "determine[d] a flight attendant’s wages; the duration and timing of vacations; rights to retention in the event of layoffs and rights to reemployment thereafter; and rights to preferential selection of flight assignments.” 431 U.S. at 555 n. 5, 97 S.Ct. 1885. In Pallas, as in this case, the NCS system was used for a host of employment-related purposes, including job bidding, shift preferences, layoffs, and eligibility for and calculation of certain benefit programs.

. Seniority, by its very nature, reflects past employment decisions.

. For example, if a female employee took pregnancy leave in 1976, before the enactment of the PDA, and again in 1981, after the enactment of the PDA, the reasoning in Baze-more would apply only if AT & T continued to limit NCS seniority credit to 30 days (the maximum credit under AT & T’s pregnancy leave rule in effect in 1976) for her pregnancy leave in 1981. However, AT & T grants full NCS seniority credit for pregnancy leaves taken after the enactment of the PDA. Accordingly, Bazemore is simply inapt here.

. See cases cited supra n. 9.

. In County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981), the Supreme Court held that the Bennett Amendment incorporated into Title VII the four affirmative defenses of the Equal Pay Act in sex-based wage discrimination cases. Id. at 171, 101 S.Ct. 2242.

. The majority contends that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 simply "clarified that injury occurs at the time that the seniority system is applied to the aggrieved party because that is when the employee is actually harmed by the deprivation of benefits.” Ante, at 1011 (emphasis added). But the Supreme Court recently rejected that view. See Ledbetter, 127 *1030S.Ct. at 2169 n. 2 ("The dissent attaches great significance to [the Civil Rights Act of 1991], suggesting that it shows that Lorance was wrongly reasoned as an initial matter. However, the veiy legislative history cited by the dissent explains that this amendment and the other 1991 Title VII amendments “ ’expanded] the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination.' ” ” (emphasis and second alteration in original) (citations omitted)).

. The majority asserts that "[t]he Seventh Circuit’s analysis in Ameritech is problematic because, although it mentioned the Civil Rights Act of 1991, it failed to actually apply it.” Ante, at 1012. Far from ignoring that Act as the majority suggests, the Seventh Circuit concluded that it did not apply because the employees failed to show discriminatory intent at the time the employer adopted the seniority system, a statutory prerequisite. Ameritech, 220 F.3d at 823.

. While erecting a confusing benefits-burdens framework, in Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U.S. 136, 98 S.Ct. 347, 54 L.Ed.2d 356, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Gilbert. There, the Court concluded that Title VII allowed an employer to deny benefits to female employees who became pregnant, but Tide VII prohibited an employer from imposing on female employees who became pregnant a burden that men need not suffer. Id. at 142, 97 S.Ct. 401. Under that approach, the Supreme Court in Satty concluded that an em*1031ployer’s policy of requiring forfeiture of all accumulated seniority for female employees who became pregnant violated Title VII, id. at 138-43, 98 S.Ct. 347, but, reaffirming Gilbert, held that an employer’s policy of not awarding sick-leave pay to female employees who became pregnant did not violate Title VII, id. 143-46, 97 S.Ct. 401.