October Term 2006 · Docket 05-1074
Does a pay disparity persisting after the initial discriminatory act remain actionable under Title VII?
The dispute centers on whether an employee can sue for pay discrimination based on a past decision that continues to affect current wages.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Russell argued that the jury found the employer paid the side that brought the case less than male employees. He stated that the employer did this because of her sex. He emphasized the ongoing nature of the pay disparity.
Mr. Nager argued that a claim is timely only if it concerns acts during the filing period. He stated that the Court has repeatedly said this. He emphasized the importance of the initial discriminatory act.
Mr. Gornstein argued that a claim brought within 180 days of a decision is timely. He referenced the specific timeframe for filing charges. He focused on the decision not to equalize pay.
Mr. Richards agreed with the premise that intent must be shown. He confirmed the requirement for discriminatory intent at the time of the paycheck.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-33
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case examines the statute of limitations for pay discrimination claims. The core issue is whether each paycheck issued after a discriminatory pay decision constitutes a new violation. the side that brought the case argues that ongoing effects of a past act keep the claim alive. the opposing side contends that only the initial discriminatory act matters for timeliness.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-37
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 27, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 25-29
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to rule that each paycheck issued after a discriminatory pay decision is a new actionable violation. She seeks to allow her claim to proceed despite the time elapsed since the initial pay decision.
the opposing side wants the Court to rule that only the initial discriminatory act matters for timeliness. It seeks to dismiss the claim because the initial act occurred outside the filing period.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-37
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that the ongoing effect of a discriminatory pay decision creates a continuous violation. She contends that each paycheck reflects the original discriminatory intent and thus remains actionable.
the opposing side argues that a claim is timely only if it concerns discriminatory acts taken during the filing period. It contends that the initial pay decision is the sole relevant act for determining timeliness.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-37
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked if the rule changes if a new owner uses the old disparity for bonuses.
Justice Ginsburg asked if the side that brought the case faces the same defense in Title VII cases as in other contexts. She also asked why the Equal Pay Act claim dropped out of the case. She questioned the incremental nature of the pay spread argument. Justice Alito asked if intent to discriminate must exist when each paycheck is issued.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-33
Why it matters
This case defines the window for employees to challenge pay disparities. It determines whether past discriminatory decisions remain actionable through their ongoing financial effects. The outcome shapes how long workers can seek redress for unequal pay. It clarifies the relationship between initial discriminatory acts and subsequent paychecks. The ruling impacts the scope of Title VII protections for current employees.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-37
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-33
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-37
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.