MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD R. BECKER, J.
This is a Title VII employment discrimination case
brought by a former "managerial" employee of Bell of Pennsylvania who retired due to illness February 11, 1974, after more than thirty years' service. Plaintiff, a female, claims that her pension checks are discriminatorily small, although the pension plan is fair and sex-neutral on its face, because the pension benefit is determined by a formula based on her five highest years' salaries. These salaries, she claims, were sex discriminatory. Plaintiff's claim was filed with the EEOC on March 12, 1975, some thirteen months after her retirement. Bell moves to dismiss on two grounds: (1) the claim is untimely because plaintiff filed with the EEOC more than 180 days after the occurrence of a discriminatory act; and (2) the claim is barred because the EEOC failed to give Bell notice of the charge.
We address Bell's second contention first because it may quickly be disposed of. No case holds that the EEOC's failure to give the notice required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) bars a later private suit, nor is there any reason why it should. Thus we refuse to dismiss the complaint
as "jurisdictionally defective" because Bell was not served with notice of the charge. We turn then to Bell's primary contention.
It is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a Title VII lawsuit, see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973), that plaintiff must have filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days after the occurrence of the discriminatory act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). Plaintiff concedes that her charge was filed more than 180 days after the occurrence of her last (allegedly) discriminatory paycheck, which is the last relevant discriminatory event during her employment. However, she asserts that her claim is not time-barred because of the existence of "continuing discrimination," i.e. that continuing payments of pension in an amount derived from a sex-discriminatory salary scale is itself a discriminatory act.
After hearing oral argument and receiving supplemental briefs, we reserved judgment as to this contention because we became aware that the Supreme Court had granted certiorari in Evans v. United Airlines, Inc., 534 F.2d 1247 (7th Cir. 1976). Evans had accorded vitality to the plaintiff's continuing discrimination claim by holding: (1) that a female flight attendant who had been rehired after being forced to resign in 1968 pursuant to a discriminatory airline rule,
but whose seniority was not restored pursuant to a facially neutral airline rule calculating seniority on the basis of continuous service, continued to suffer effects of past discrimination; and (2) that her failure to file a complaint with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within ninety days
after the discriminatory discharge did not bar her action. The court thus held that a facially neutral seniority system is a continuing violation of Title VII if it prolongs the effect of the plaintiff's original discriminatory discharge.
The Supreme Court has now decided Evans, and has reversed, United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 97 S. Ct. 1885, 52 L. Ed. 2d 571 (1977), destroying plaintiff's continuing violation argument. The Supreme Court held that United did not commit a present, continuing violation of Title VII by refusing to credit respondent, after rehiring her in 1972, with pre-1972 seniority, absent any allegation that United's seniority system, which is neutral in its operation, discriminates against former female employees or victims of past discrimination.
In language critical here, Justice Stevens wrote:
Respondent is correct in pointing out that the seniority system give present effect to a past act of discrimination. But United was entitled to treat that past act as lawful after respondent failed to file a charge of discrimination within the 90 days then allowed by § 706(d). 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. It may constitute relevant background evidence in a proceeding in which the status of a current practice is at issue, but separately considered, it is merely an unfortunate event in history which has no present legal consequences.