Fair-Wage Bill Clears The Senate; High Court Decision Would Be Overturned

[Faygo Kid]

Source: Washington Post

A wage-discrimination bill that narrowly failed less than a year ago moved closer to becoming law last night, when the Senate passed the legislation and sent it back to the House for final consideration.

The measure, approved 61 to 36, would overturn a Supreme Court decision to make it easier for women to sue employers for pay inequity, regardless of when the discrepancies took place. It may become the first legislation signed by President Obama, who campaigned in favor of it.

The bill, dubbed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, was introduced after a Supreme Court ruling in 2007 rejected a $360,000 award in back pay to Lilly Ledbetter, an Alabama woman who worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber. Ledbetter had discovered a large gap between her salary and that of her male colleagues, stretching back years.

The discrepancy cost her lost wages and also lowered her retirement earnings because her Social Security and 401(k) contributions were based on her salary. But the court ruled that Ledbetter's case was not allowed under the 1964 Civil Rights Act because the statute of limitations on claims was 180 days after the alleged discrimination took place. . .

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012201787.html?hpid=topnews

---

Lilly rode the train with the then president-elect into Washington. Think he's gonna sign it? Like on Friday?

This is a great victory for workers' rights, even though it only puts the law that has existed for many years back into force. The Ledbetter decision has been brutally misused by right wing judges to deny even the most credible claims by workers under laws designed to protect them. I encourage you to look at this, as some recent posters here would deny her and others their redress. Again, this restores the law. And President Obama can't wait to sign it. Beautiful.

[depakid]

1. "approved 61 to 36"

Expect to see a lot more of that, so long as the DINO's are kept in check.

[AllyCat]

14. 5 Repubs voted with the Dems, 4 women and Specter

[DCKit]

2. Can't fault the SC for enforcing the letter of an incomplete law...

but :toast: to Lilly!!!

[drmeow]

5. It seems to me that

If the discrimination is on-going and/or was long-term, the SC could have argued that every paycheck represented an act of discrimination and/or that it had been one single very long act of discrimination that took place over an extended period of time thereby putting the 180 days at 180 days after her last paycheck, not 180 days after her first paycheck. They chose to enforce an interpretation of the law biased in one direction (with power) vs the other direction (against power).

[defendandprotect]

8. If . . . they wanted to be fair --

[drmeow]

10. Right - my point was that it seems to me

that it still would be adhering to the letter of the law (in response to the previous post).

[defendandprotect]

11. My point is that the right-wing's intentions are not to be fair or to

commit "justice." Especially in regard to females!!

[pinqy]

21. But that's the thing....

The discrimination was NOT on-going nor long term. The EFFECTS of the initial discrimination carried on, but Ledbetter made no claim that any paychecks were directly the result of discrimination.

If 5 people are hired at the same time, and the hiring manager hires A,B,C, and D at $30,000/year but discriminates against E and hires E at $20,000, that's discrimination. One act. But let's say the rest of the management is not discriminatory and actually gives E a 4% raise every year, but only a 3% raise to A,B,C, and D. After 20 years, E's salary is now $42,137/year, while A,B,C,D get $52,605. Big gap. But do you really want to claim that giving E a larger raise every year is discriminatory against E?

Scotus based their decision on the fact that the actual pay-setting was not discriminatory, but that the early performance evaluations, upon which the pay was set, were. So the proper complaint would have been against the unjustified performance evaluations. Ledbetter knew that the evaluations were unfairly low based on her sex, but took no action. Now, there are cases where the pay-setting itself is discriminatory, and the individual is not in a position to know this until years later. The dissent in the Ledbetter case was focused on that, though it didn't actually pertain to the case at hand, and the new law is based on that.

[OhioChick]

3. Good to hear...

Anyone know when they'll be voting on "The H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act?"

I posted about both these recently.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x418655

[Enrique]

4. wow, such great news

Republicans couldn't stop it this time.

I hope this is the first bill Obama signs.

:bounce:

[bertman]

6. Exellent news. K & R.

[Left Coast2020]

7. THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT

......and we're only just getting warmed up.
Throw it right back in Thomas' face, and Sca-lito, and Roberts. YES!!!!

[LynneSin]

9. I was watching some of the debate in the Senate - Isakson is a jerk

:grr:

He wanted to add an amendment that would not allow for past discrepancies like the case of Lily Ledbetter

[mzmolly]

12. Democrats are wasting NO time implementing change.

:toast:

[malletgirl02]

13. Ledbetter

I hope Obama invites Ledbetter to watch when he signs it.

[bananas]

15. Great news! nt

[underpants]

16. According to "the reader" Roberts's court she was supposed to know

20 years earlier that she wasn't making as much as the guy standing beside her

:eyes:

Glad they overturned this

[pinqy]

22. She did know.

Goodyear's pay setting was based on performance evaluation. Her early performance evaluations were biased against her sex, and she knew it (or else how could she make that claim?). She may not have known the severity of the effect, but she did know that discrimination occurred.

[8 track mind]

17. Am i dreaming? Is this really Happening? n/t

[Ken Burch]

18. Another good moment.

Onward to passage of the Employee Free Choice Act!

[road2000]

19. Horrible reporting, though.

"The measure, approved 61 to 36, would overturn a Supreme Court decision to make it easier for women to sue employers for pay inequity, regardless of when the discrepancies took place."

Sounds just the opposite of what it means. The SC decision did not "make it easier for women to sue employers..."

[lamp_shade]

20. I big feather in Sen. Milkowski's hat. She's a fighter and I enjoyed watching

her all day yesterday.