Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.
E165273
Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court employment discrimination case that restricted when workers could challenge discriminatory seniority systems, prompting Congress to overturn its effect through the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Lorance et al. (plaintiffs) | 1 |
| Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1440276 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. Context triple: [Civil Rights Act of 1991, respondsToCourtDecision, Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.]
-
A.
Hicklin v. Orbeck
Hicklin v. Orbeck is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down Alaska’s local-hire law for violating the Privileges and Immunities Clause by discriminating against nonresident workers.
-
B.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
-
C.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson is a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that first recognized workplace sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination actionable under Title VII.
-
D.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
-
E.
Corfield v. Coryell
Corfield v. Coryell is an 1823 federal circuit court decision by Justice Bushrod Washington that famously articulated an influential early list of the fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. Target entity description: Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court employment discrimination case that restricted when workers could challenge discriminatory seniority systems, prompting Congress to overturn its effect through the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
A.
Hicklin v. Orbeck
Hicklin v. Orbeck is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down Alaska’s local-hire law for violating the Privileges and Immunities Clause by discriminating against nonresident workers.
-
B.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
-
C.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson is a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that first recognized workplace sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination actionable under Title VII.
-
D.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
-
E.
Corfield v. Coryell
Corfield v. Coryell is an 1823 federal circuit court decision by Justice Bushrod Washington that famously articulated an influential early list of the fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (25)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
employment discrimination case ⓘ |
| citation | 490 U.S. 900 ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1989 ⓘ |
| effect | restricted when workers could challenge discriminatory seniority systems ⓘ |
| holding | Title VII limitations period for challenging a seniority system begins when the system is adopted, not when it is applied to an employee ⓘ |
| impact | prompted Congress to amend Title VII to allow challenges when a discriminatory seniority system is applied ⓘ |
| issue | timeliness of challenges to allegedly discriminatory seniority systems under Title VII ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| legalArea |
civil rights law
ⓘ
employment discrimination law ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Justice Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
linked to:
Antonin Scalia
|
| overruledByStatute | 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(2) ⓘ |
| parties |
AT&T Technologies, Inc. (defendant)
ⓘ
linked to:
AT&T
Lorance et al. (plaintiffs) ⓘ
linked to:
Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.
|
| precedentialStatus | binding precedent until modified by statute ⓘ |
| relatedLegislation | Civil Rights Act of 1991 ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ |
| subsequentActionByCongress | overturned in part by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ⓘ |
| topic |
Title VII disparate treatment claims
ⓘ
seniority systems ⓘ statute of limitations ⓘ |
| vote | 5-4 decision ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. Description of subject: Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court employment discrimination case that restricted when workers could challenge discriminatory seniority systems, prompting Congress to overturn its effect through the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.