For Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it must be a case of deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would say.

The Supreme Court, over her dissent Monday, upheld a provision of an AT&T Corp. pension program that had subtracted from the retirement plan’s calculation of seniority the time female workers took off to give birth. The court held in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen that women who took leave before 1978 suffered no illegal discrimination because federal law did not equate pregnancy bias with sex discrimination in those days.

The justices, in a 7-2 vote, said the precedent back then was General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, a 1976 decision in which the high court stated that “an exclusion of pregnancy from a disability-benefits plan providing general coverage [was] not a gender-based discrimination at all.”

The Gilbert decision prompted Ginsburg — then a women’s rights attorney — to co-author a New York Times column urging Congress to amend Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and classify pregnancy discrimination as illegal gender bias. Congress agreed and enacted the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Now more than 30 years later, Ginsburg has returned to the fight, saying the current court has paid insufficent heed to the PDA.

“Congress put the court back on track in 1978 when it amended Title VII to repudiate Gilbert‘s holding and reasoning,” Ginsburg wrote on Monday, in a dissent joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer. ”Congress’ swift and strong repudiation of Gilbert, the court today holds, does not warrant any redress for the plaintiffs in this case.”

On the cover:  Firing back at the shotgun approach — Tired of being sued for lead-paint poisoning, resident agents and others have started seeking sanctions for frivolous litigation.

Lawyers says the recent Court of Appeals decision subjecting the thimerosal/autism link to the Frye-Reed test “moves the line” on emerging toxic court claims.

In Breaking News, 10 members of Deckelbaum, Ogens & Raftery Chtd. to join Offit Kurman; an employee fired for complaining about sex discrimination has been awarded $244K in attorney’s fees; a Baltimore jury has awarded a lead-paint poisoning victim $2M; an asbestos verdict for a mechanic tops $1.9M; and UM Law graduates take center stage.

In Verdicts & Settlements, a judge rejects a dentist’s claim to a log cabin.

Yale M. Ginsburg discusses his enthusiasm for needlepoint in Unbillable Hours.

Keep up-to-date with our Legal Briefs and Law Digest, with cases from the Maryland Court of Appeals, Maryland Court of Special Appeals, U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and Office of Administrative Hearings.

Happy Monday!

• Paul Mark Sandler asks if it’s time to rethink the standard voir dire questions now that it’s apparently routine for jurors to look up cases on the Internet.
• Check out this blog post about the failings of a breath test device.
• Which past cases or positions from the various SCOTUS short-listers could hurt their chances of confirmation?
• Conservatives should stop their phony outrage over Obama’s desire for a justice with empathy, says Dahlia Lithwick. HT: How Appealing.
• This blog post is titled, “Solo, The Last Refuge of Incompetence?” Yeah, I’m thinking it’ll stir people up.