# Lorance v. At&t Technologies, Inc.

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 12, 1989 · 490 U.S. 900

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431710

## Case

- **Full name:** LORANCE Et Al. v. AT&T TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 12, 1989
- **Citations:** 490 U.S. 900; 57 U.S.L.W. 4654; 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 39,051; 49 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1656; 109 S. Ct. 2261; 104 L. Ed. 2d 961; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2837
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stevens
- **Judges:** Scalia, Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Kennedy, Marshall, Brennan, Blackmun, O'Connor
- **Cited by:** 245 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431710

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that complaints filed under the ADA must follow the same administrative exhaustion procedures as those filed under Title VII
- stating that "[w]e granted certiorari ... to resolve a Circuit conflict on when the statute of limitations period begins to run in a lawsuit arising out of a seniority system not alleged to be discriminatory on its face or as presently applied"
- observing that a discriminatory act occurs at the time of the discriminatory act, not when the consequences of the act start having a discriminatory effect, and holding that complaints concerning a seniority system occurred when the system was adopted with discriminatory intent
- rejecting the theoretical statutory construct that “to regard the employer as having been guilty of a continuing violation which ‘occurred,’ ... not only when the contractual right was eliminated but also when each of the concrete effects of that elimination was felt”
- holding that a facially discriminatory seniority system can be challenged at any time but in a facially neutral system, the discriminatory act occurs only at the time of adoption

## Opinion text

Justice Stevens,
concurring.
Although I remain convinced that the Court misconstrued Title VII in American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U. S. 63 (1982), see id., at 86-90 (dissenting opinion), and in Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U. S. 250 (1980), see id., at 265-267 (dissenting opinion), the Court has correctly applied those decisions to the case at hand. And it is the Court’s construction of the statute — rather than the views of an individual Justice — that becomes a part of the law. See Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, 480 U. S. 616, 644 (1987) (Stevens, J., concurring); Dougherty County Bd. of Education v. White, 439 U. S. 32, 47 (1978) (Stevens, J., concurring). Accordingly, I join the Court’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431710. Public record. Not legal advice.