was not considered a break in service. Accordingly, the 2000 Qwest Plan treats persons who had a break in service for pregnancy differently than those who had a break in service for a nonpregnancy disability, resulting in a present violation of Title VII. Although the act of discriminating against Woods is 1969 is not actionable, Qwest’s decision to discriminate against Woods in the adoption and application of its plan in 2000 is actionable. See id. The court thus finds Qwest’s reclassification of employees as either “classic” or nonclassic for receipt of enhanced pension benefits in 2000, using a system tainted by earlier discrimination, amounted to a fresh violation of the PDA. See id.; Ameritech Ben. Plan Committee v. Communication Workers, 220 F.3d 814, 823 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The Qwest Plan distinguishes between
holding that the defendant withheld pension benefits in breach of the plan holding that discriminatory act occurred when employer amended its plan in response to pda but did not amend service credit for pension purposes holding that appropriate remedy was to compute service credit for veterans in accordance with vrra rather than pursuant to employers pension plan and requiring retroactive pension plan payments to be made holding that plan participants in a defined benefit pension plan have no claim to the plans surplus assets holding that employer may not orally modify a pension plan and citing 29 usc  1102a1 which provides that all plan terms must be in writing