Now Comes Lilly Ledbetter

[DainBramaged]

For incoming White House staff, the past few days have been a singularly thrilling -- and learning -- experience. Wide-eyed staffers roam the halls of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with thick stacks of HR paperwork in hand, new phone numbers are being memorized -- and the line for coffee and club sandwiches is starting to grow as word spreads about the White House Mess. It's safe to say that working at the White House isn't something anyone can prepare for, but the career staff continue to work tirelessly to make the first few days as smooth as possible.

The new media team is coming online as well and our first priority is digging into this new website: improving some of the basic press office functions (like the timely posting of press releases, executive orders, etc.), developing content from other parts of the Administration to share with you and mapping out a plan for technology development. Thanks to heroic supporting roles by the Office of Administration's web and IT team (career government employees who span administrations), we were able to launch the new website. Now we begin the task of moving it forward.

Congress isn't waiting for the dust to settle though -- and neither is the President. Next week the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is due to be passed by Congress and sent to the President. The language within the Senate's version (S.181 ) is likely to be the version that arrives on the President's desk for signature, and includes this summary:

A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will restore the law to where it was before the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Justice Ginsberg's dissent summarizes the facts of Ledbetter's complaint:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/now-comes-lilly-ledbetter/

[pinqy]

1. Restoring the rules?

Where on earth are they getting that from? First, there is no time limit for filing a claim under the Equal Pay Act. Ledbetter did not pursue an EPA claim however, preferring a Title VII discrimination claim. Title VII has always had time limit for a claim of discrimination because that's what Congress put into the law. IF the disparate pay had been because of a POLICY of discrimination, then each paycheck would have been considered a seperate act (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/478/385.html">Bazemore v Friday (1986)), but that was not alleged here. No one argued that Goodyear had a policy of discrimination nor that the method of determining pay raises was inherently discriminatory. It was individual acts of discrimination in her performance evaluations that caused the disparity, and Ledbetter knew about those acts at the time. At one point during her career she received a disproportionatly GREATER raise which the supervisor claimed in court was because he had noticed the disparity of pay and tried to correct it (though he did not inform Ledbetter of his motive). If his claim is true then it seems odd to me to claim that a pay check that was biased in her favor should be considered discriminatory against her.

In http://laws.findlaw.com/us/431/553.html">United Air Lines v Evans (1977) The Supreme Court rejected a similar argument: Evans had been fired from her position as flight attendent because she got married, in violation of UA (illegal) policy. She did not file suit, either seperately or as part of the class action suit that ruled the policy illegal. When she was rehired in 1972, none of her previous experience was counted for seniority purposes and she sued on the grounds that this was present effect of a prior discriminatory policy. The Court ruled that since the policy for determining seniority of rehires was not discriminatory (since it applied to men and women who had been fired or left for non-discriminatory reasons) and since she could no longer file suit for the past discrimination, there was no present discrimination despite the fact that present non-discriminatory policy gave effect to past disrimination.

[DainBramaged]

2. So, what's your beef?

[pinqy]

3. I dislike inaccurate portrayals

The law is the law. I believe the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the law as it was. Now it's changing and the new law will be correct. I strongly dislike the portrayal of the new law as "restoring" the rules, which it does not.

[DainBramaged]

4. So, you disagree with the White House?

[pinqy]

5. Yes. Is there a problem with that?

I do not see the White House's description of the Ledbetter case, nor the description of the new law(s) as accurate portrayals. President Obama also (seems to have) wrongly portrayed the gender pay gap (in his campaign site) as being solely due to direct discrimination...which is nonsense.

[DainBramaged]

6. I see, have you voiced your concerns to President Obama, or do you think we have a direct line

to him here?

[pinqy]

7. Have you voiced your support to the President?

I was not aware that presenting a viewpoint here required any direct correspondence with the personality/agency discussed. President Bush must have been inundated with letters/emails etc from DU if every single post disagreeing with something he said required direct contact.

[DainBramaged]

8. I just reported what was on the whitehouse.gov website

I was not aware I was responsible for factual content or writing a signing statement regarding laws with words only lawyers and Latin scholars can understand. I take the report above on face value and that the White House under our NEW President tried to clarify the mysteries of lawyerspeak.

[DainBramaged]

9. I have one more question

Are you against affirmative action?

[pinqy]

10. That depends what definition you're using.

[DainBramaged]

11. I'm being broad in my question, not specific.

Affirmative action is by definition:


“Affirmative action” means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. When those steps involve preferential selection—selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity—affirmative action generates intense controversy.


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/

[DainBramaged]

12. I am surprised this didn't get any other comment from the experts here....