Lilly Ledbetter Kicks Goodyear’s Tires
By Pat Racimora on January 30, 2009 at 12:58 PM in Barack Obama, Civil Rights, Supreme Court, Workers
(bumped up from yesterday, about the historic legislation for women!)
As Lilly Ledbetter approached her retirement after working as a Goodyear plant supervisor for many years, someone slipped her a disturbing fact. Her male colleagues had been making far more than she was. She sued.
A jury found Goodyear guilty, but the Supreme Court threw out the case. Why? The reason will astound and disturb anyone who works for a private company.
According to enough Bush Supreme Court appointees to reach a 5-4 decision, Ledbetter should have filed her suit within 6 months after the first discriminatory paycheck was issued.
Huh? How’s that again? Exactly how would Lilly have known that fact way back then, given that private companies are still under no obligation to supply salary information to their employees?
President Obama spoke of Lilly Ledbetter’s plight during his campaign, and today he put his pen where his mouth was. (We at No Quarter are watching for what he actually does and give credit when credit is due.) The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act has been signed into law.
Amy Goldstein deftly puts the bill in its proper perspective:
The legislation …essentially rewrites the rules that specify the time within which workers may sue under a part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that outlaws discrimination based on gender, race, national origin or religion. Under the bill, workers may bring a lawsuit for up to six months after they receive ANY [emphasis added] paycheck that they allege is discriminatory.
The high court had held that such cases could be brought only within six months of the discrimination’s beginning, rejecting a long-held interpretation by lower courts and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that each paycheck represented a fresh act of discrimination.
Republicans and others have said this is simply a victory for litigators. Perhaps it is one more income source for trial attorneys because a new law can now be broken. But as Congresswoman Barbara Mikulski (D-RI) put it, “If you don’t want to be sued, don’t discriminate!”
So, in the end did Lilly Ledbetter become rich as well as famous? Well, no. Now 70 and recently widowed, she will not receive restitution and her case cannot be retired. As Gail Collins puts it, “She’s now part of a long line of working women who went to court and changed a little bit of the world in fights that often brought them minimal personal benefit.”
A friend sent along a quote by Mary Ann Radmacher that well characterizes the Lilly Ledbetters of the world.
Courage does not always roar.
Sometimes courage is the quiet voice
at the end of the day saying,
“I will try again tomorrow.”
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
That ruling is patently absurd. It is a cardinal rule that you don’t discuss what you make with colleagues, unless you want to lose your job.
And the court would probably agree with that statement, which makes their ruling even more moronic. A better example of a Catch-22 cannot be had.
The SCOTUS are insane anyway. They don’t think US voters have the right to make a POTUS show his documents.
But if their pay rules are fair, why would they need the “silence clause”? They wouldn’t have to fire people for discussing pay rates, when there is a transparent and fair way of basing pay.
That’s what was so breathtaking about the SCOTUS ruling: All employees for private companies are instructed to never talk about their pay, from the moment they are hired.
Kudos to those who pushed and signed this legislation. Congratulations to Lily Ledbetter who fought the good fight. I’m grateful to everyone who supported this bill, and I’m grateful to Obama for signing it into law so quickly.
It’s right and just.
Wunder Barry was famous for grossly underpaying women working in his campaign. I am sure they have plenty of time to file for sexual reparations.
I was thinking about that also. The story came out during the campaign that the men wee earning more and that McCain was far more generous with his female staff. (McCain, however, would not have been in favor of this bill.)
This was not women working in his campaign (or it could have been that, too) but women who worked on his Senate staff!! Plus, he had fewer women than men by more than a percentage or two.
Shame on him for this two-faced way of promoting equal pay. He preached it during the campaign but did not practice it.
Yes, he signed the bill but why didn’t he do what he’s now telling everyone is a crime not to do?
“The new legislation isn’t limited to gender-based discrimination. It amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act and also applies to discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, disability or age.”
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/President44/Story?id=6757817&page=1
It’s not just a woman’s bill–it lumps everyone together.
Anyway, fantastic news. Glad for O’s John Hancock. But *really* the thanks goes to Lily Ledbetter and women in the senate like Sec. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barbara Mikulski for fighting hard for this.
Thank you.
Amen to that!!
Great post Pat, love the cartoon !!
Hmmm… wonder why they left off sexual orientation? (or am I just too used to California rules?)
Descriptive cartoon and a very informative article. I am sure that this will help some women and also some minorities.
The problem I find is that it is hard to legislate morality and fairness. First, unless a company posts its salaries and the rang of salaries for each position you can not know unless another employee breaks a company policy and lets you know. In the future one way to continue paying less could be to give poor reviews to those that you want to pay less. This will also make it harder for them to leave because who would want to hire someone who had a poor review. Since most reviews are a judgment call, this can be done relatively easily. We have seen people get good revues for years and then a terrible review when the company need or wanted to fire them.
The best way to stop discrimination is for people to promote themselves by going into the market place and finding out what a job is worth in a company that is hiring for your position. That is how I had to do it, since I did not play golf, was not sports oriented, and am from a minority religion.
Rich
By this logic, we should amend the penal code so that, if after 6 month the cops haven’t caught the thief, murderer, rapist, or robber, then they can’t file charges against the person who committed the crime. After all, the penal code is simply a victory for litigators who are hired to prosecute and defend these cases.
Today is a great day for all Americans who love their country and support our American creed that all are born with equal rights and that governments are instituted to protect those rights.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act gives us one more tool to protect our rights and one more reason to celebrate what is great about the American creed.
LOL Sam. I love your penal code comment! Those are the right kinds of parallels to draw when this sort of logic emerges.
Sam Copeland –
There are limitations on when most crimes can be charged in most states.
For misdemeanors the offense usually has to be filed within a year.
Recently, some states have amended or adopted legislation allowing the clock to be delayed re: child sex cases and DNA hits.
Felonies have varying statutes of limitations governing the filing of such charges.
Typically only murder charges can be filed at any time.
Statues of limitations makes sense because (a) it limits the state’s ability to bring arbitrary cases and (b) it insures proper discovery of facts (which may be difficult to ascertain for some crimes with the passage of time — an issue that was not part of the Ledbetter case).
My understanding is that the limitation on misdemeanors in the US is generally two years (not one) and can be as much as 10 years depending on the state; regardless, there is no crime that I am aware of in the US where the statute of limitations is 6 months (perhaps a legal beagle out there can let us know if there is one in the US; Canada does have some statutes of limitations of 6 months).
In addition, statutes of limitations for many crimes and civil suits can be tolled — that is given certain situations they can be extended if raised as a defense. Some examples of tolling factors relevant to the case of discrimination include (a) if the condition still exists and (b) in medical malpractice suits the statute of limitations does not start until the harm is discovered.
Had the Supreme Court used case law that has been developed to deal with statutes of limitation, the Ledbetter case would have been allowed to proceed under its own merits.
Bottomline: The logic of the GOP and the Supreme Court would have us conclude that the entire penal code is a victory for litigators. The truth of the matter is that today is a victory for Americans and their American creed.
Sam Copeland -
Six months (180 days) is fairly standard for administrative cases, which these are,
as they are first “investigated” prior to a “Right to Sue Letter” being granted to the Plaintiff by the EEOC or State agency.
You wrote:
Statues of limitations don’t limit the State’s ability to file arbitrary cases – requiring probable cause does.
Nothing other than vigilant law enforcement, victims, and attorneys insures proper discovery of facts.
It always comes down to the people involved.
Just like the Ledbetter case.
What you say is not true.
For example, there is a 6 year general statute of limitations for the federal government to file cases on contracts. Ironically, the Supreme Court in 2006 in BP America Production Co. v. Burton ruled that this 6 year statute didn’t apply to a federal contract over gas rights. Funny, that the Supreme Court didn’t use the same case law in Ledbetter.
In tax cases, there is a short (45-60 day) limitation for filing a case but this is after the government has the needed facts (i.e., the discovery of ham) to establish that the tax laws have been broken.
In Johnson v SEC, the court established a 5 year limitation for the SEC to file administrative proceedings (but subsequent case rulings extended this 5 year limitation in some conditions).
I could go on. You can try to take away the rights of Americans to redress grievances by claiming an artificial 6 month limitations rule, but that effort is inconsistent with case law and with our American creed.
Sam Copeland –
Your logic is flawed and you clearly don’t have a law degree or even a basic understanding of the law.
If ignorance is bliss, you are in heaven.
Thanks for conceding.
As Cicero put it, “if you have no argument, attack the witness.”
You chose to reply to my comment using an ad hominem. If you had a solid argument (such as listing the cases that establish a 6 month standard of limitations), then you could have done that.
Sam Copeland –
Please note the following:
http://www.eeoc.gov/
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/epa.html
You are entitled to your uninformed opinion, but the FACTS don’t change.
Legal terms MEAN certain things, which you don’t understand and appear to be unwilling to acknowledge.
The argument isn’t what the EEOC currently does (or thanks to the new law did) but what it should do. The fact that the EEOC has the procedure you quote is irrelevant to whether or not that should be the procedure. The fact that slavery existed in 1820 is not an argument that it should exist.
Your argument was that “six months (180 days) is fairly standard for administrative cases.” My point is that there are many administrative cases where 180 days is not the rule. (I took your statement to apply to all administrative cases and not just EEOC since what the EEOC did is irrelevant for what it should do). These other administrative law case statutes are relevant to what should be the procedure because (a) they show that 180 days is not always the standard and (b) provide legal reasoning for how to set statutes of limitation.
In terms of what should be the law, I think Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer had it right in their dissent (as I noted in another comment). When they argue that pay discrimination is hard to detect and that it is a continuing condition and thus the statutes of limitation should be extended, they are on firm legal ground because statutes of limitations in other cases (as I have cited) have been extended for just those reasons.
The Ledbetter law signed today incorporates those arguments. It simply and elegantly states that the 180 day limitations resets in pay discrimination cases.
The Supreme Court should have used the case law on statutes of limitations to uphold Ledbetter’s right to sue.
Sam Copeland –
I don’t know how they do things in your country, but in the U.S., Judges’ opinions must take into account the deadlines set forth in statutes when determinative.Your “Master of the Obvious” Award is in the mail, which you won for “it’s nice not to discriminate”.I’ll alert the media.[ADMIN: Julie, try to avoid the sarcasm route. Btw, Sam Copeland is a knowledgeable expert who's written some outstanding articles for No Quarter. That doesn't make him perfect, but it does make him worthy of our respect and of respectful language when we address him, as we should all of our fellow readers and writers. Thanks, Julie.]
And one more point, my argument is the same one given by Justice Ginsburg in her dissent in the Ledbetter case. She was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer.
Her argument was similar to my point about tolling — extending statutes of limitations based on some circumstance. Her argument was that (a) pay discrimination is hard to detect because it happens in small increments and pay records are confidential (similar to the detection of harm argument above)and (b) pay discrimination carries over during each 180 day period (similar to my continuing conditions argument).
But I guess, Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer’s “logic is flawed and they clearly don’t have a law degree or even a basic understanding of the law.”
Sam Copeland –
You Sam are no Supreme Court Justice.
Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer OR YOU?
For starters, they are attorneys with law degrees who have written well-researched legal opinions.
You cut and paste their work, which you fail to comprehend.
Again, why do you respond to a post with an ad hominem attack?
If I have misstated the opinion of Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, the proper response would be to say, “You misstated the opinion of these justices by….”
If you disagree with the opinions of Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, the proper response would be to say, “I think these Justices are wrong and the statute of limitations should be limited to 180 days because….” [and provide cases and moral arguments to support your claim -- not merely stating that this is the way the EEOC does it so that should be the way it is done].
Sam Copeland –
Ledbetter lost because she didn’t understand the applicable law – just like you.
First you spouted off a series of incorrect statements regarding criminal law.
Then you incoherently rambled on about “statues” of limitations.
You have no clue about civil procedure.
You aren’t a learned Justice. You aren’t even an attorney. You don’t understand criminal law, civil procedure or administrative law.
Anybody with hands could cut and paste the way you did.
Again, this is a personal attack without stating any substantive point. You have yet to address (a) how I misstated the Ginsberg dissent and/or (b) your legal/moral arguments for a 180 day statute of limitations for pay discrimination.
The Ledbetter decision was split 5 to 4 along ideological lines. Had the court had a different make up (i.e. more liberals than conservatives) in all likelihood she would have prevailed.
Ginsberg et al. clearly thought Ledbetter had a legitimate case and understood applicable law as did the lower court that issued the initial ruling in her favor.
To just dismiss us all as not having your level of knowledge of the law without explaining that knowledge isn’t a very fair or sound argument.
Will your next comment be another personal attack or will you add a substantive argument?
Sam Copeland –
You haven’t said anything that is accurate
and
original.
I’m vaguely amused that you want me to
add
a substantive argument.
Is your paste key stuck?
Sam Copeland –
When did I dismiss anybody?
All of my comments were addressed to only you (except that I just thanked LonnieH downstream).
You’re the one LECTURING on subjects in which you are not competent.
“Again, why do you respond to a post with an ad hominem attack?”
Sam, because repeatedly that is all JulieD and others can offer. When frustrated by the facts or evidence, instead of addressing those, giving you the chance to be incorrect and thus correct, it is easier to simply smear you as incompetent. Welcome to NQ.
Glad to see you. Please come back often to share your views, and I agree with you, This law is a victory for the rights of those who have been treated as second class citizens for too long.
Nightie night 007. And Sam, keep on fighting the good fight. We need your sort around here.
truthtelling007 -
I consider it an honor to be hated by a Sharia law lover like you.
How dare you pretend to care about equal pay for women
or about women or children at all for that matter.
I could never smear you with incompetence. You earn it.
[ADMIN: Let's avoid wholesale condemnations, particularly when they are exaggerated. We're flagging readers who do this often.]
Thanks for the kind words. Politics is a contact sport, so these light-hearted exchanges won’t keep me away from NQ.
Had Sandra Day O’Connor been on the Supreme Court instead of Alito, the Ledbetter ruling would have been 5-4 but this time Ledbetter would have prevailed.
That is why politics matter. A little difference can make a big difference in people’s lives.
And that is why NQ matters — a place to discuss politics and issues because such things matter.
I am mostly enjoying this exchange.
Julie, I should note that I know Sam Copeland’s real identity. Trust me–You aren’t playing with a rookie!
Pat Racimora –
Do you mean rookie infielder because he/she sure isn’t an attorney!
Yet another personal attack.
Why not explain your position and argue for it instead of name-calling?
You can begin by either stating how I misstated Ginsberg et al.’s position (as you seemed to claim) or arguing for why there should be a 180 statutes of limitation on pay discrimination cases.
Sam Copeland –
Namecalling? That must be the voices in your head.
You cut and pasted an opinion. My dog could do that with practice.
One of the greatest things about NQ is watching JulieD go at it. WOOT WOOT.
LonnieH –
Hugs!
No, he isn’t an attorney, but I think you would be embarrassed if you knew who he was…He deserves a lot of our respect and appreciation.
I’m still waiting to hear some argument of why the 180 day limitation is good…
harper –
It encourages
people to complain about discrimination at the earliest opportunity –
before problems get out of hand.
The EEOC or comparable state agency can investigate and if necessary recommend various remedies.
If that fails to satisfy the Complainant, there is the opportunity for a civil suit in either federal – or state court if the state has a Human Rights Act.
The 180 day limit also gives the accused entity an opportunity to correct offenses without the fear of endlessly re-litigating the same problem – different date.
It allows for “Judicial Economy”.
It was also likely a trade-off when the legislation was enacted to prevent agencies from being swamped and businesses and the government from fighting it too much.
HOWEVER – In Ledbetter’s case, there really is no good excuse for rewarding an organization for being sneaky about discrimination.
It’s akin to medical malpractice when a patient finds out about the clamp left inside, which starts the clock running regardless of when the operation was done.
One might note that The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed the Senate by 61-36. Every Democratic senator voted for it except Kennedy who was too sick. All of the four women Republican senators voted for it. However, every male Republican senator voted against it except Arlen Specter, with apparently 2 men not showing up to vote.
Boy, you gotta think those male Senators who voted against a fair pay act for women (and others) is going to catch hell from the women in his state. Could there be Republican women who would be glad for a no vote? I can’t imagine that.
Hey Pat, thanks for another great cartoon and editorial.
This is a very big step for Gender Equality.
Pres. Obama’s signature brings a new beginning towards having men and women treated equally in the workplace. Much more must be done.
Go to http://www.campaignforgenderequality.org and sign up. This organization is focused on Equality.
Keep fighting, we’ve got a long way to go so we are all equal.
Yes, this is a good group. Thank you.
This isn’t against this Act, I think it was a good thing. But fulminating against the SCOTUS isn’t the answer… It was the dumbass representatives and senators that passed crappy or poorly-written legislation. They’re all too ready to pawn off responsibility and blather on about fixing a SCOTUS issue when they’re really fixing their own blunders…
We all know the Supremes were ridiculous in their rejection of LilyL. It would have been impossible for her to have knowledge of this discrimination, which it was. Until retirement time it was accidentally discovered. Supreme Repubs knew full well that she was discriminated against without knowledge for years.
Culturally the old boyz club of the GOP remains mired in the past of mysogyny and will resort to any legal ruse to deny equality for women in the workplace.
Hopefully this is a beginning for women in the workplace and in our cultural wilderness.
Pat, that is a FANTASTIC cartoon – thank you!
And thanks for the article. Hillary Clinton was a co=sponsor of this bill. Obama? Not so much. Glad she could stand there while it was being signed (though you know it should have been her signing that bill into law).
I knew that he would take credit after BM and HRC worked so hard on this bill. I was really hoping that HRC would be in the senate to share in the signing of this important bill (better yet signing the bill). Everyone should note BM comments at HRC’s farewell saying that this bill could not be passed without her.
Somebody up there in another post said:
“It’s hard to legislate fairness or morality”.
Well, yes indeed! But it’s LEGISLATION that has helped this society progress to this extent and protects rights of women (the only majority being discriminated!) and minorities. Where would we be without enactment of LEGISLATED RIGHTS! Media morons would have gone to town with Obama in monkey suits and bananas calling him god knows what…But it was OKay for them to trash two politically high profile women. After all, they’re JUST women! So all rights are useless unless they are LEGISLATED rights!
Let’s enact Anti-Hatred legislation for sexist acts!
Another great cartoon and post Pat.
Haven’t had time to post lately. But have done a quick scan of articles from time to time. Loved your gag order cartoon and post. One of my favorites.
Some seem to be discounting this act because it just not about women. But since women are more than 1/2 population I would think its a win win. Legislation alone doesn’t change things. And an all encompassing bill makes sure those that want to discriminate will have that many fewer avenues around the bill. I worry as the economy tanks women in the work force will be disproportionately terminated.
The underlying excuse being the old fable “the man needs the job to support his family.” When women (I believe) head almost half of american households.
Yes, Choo Choo! The working women I know who are hurting the most are alone with little ones to care for. In a few of those cases, the husbands’ whereabouts are simply unknown.
Excellent cartoon and presentation, Pat.
I would score “1″ for Obama. However, it would be ironic, but perhaps deserved, if he were now to be sued by some female staff for being underpaid while in the Senate.
I’ll bite the bullet and be magnanimous. Thank you for following through on your promise as regards this issue, President Obama.
Good for you Hank! I know that this can feel hard to do. : )
As someone who has actually sued under this law, I can say that it is a good thing to have the books clarified; but the reality is that no law makes a lot of difference to working men and women.
This law closes a few loop holes and evens out the differences that existed between the various discrimination laws, but the reality is that a company has more financial resources and time than an individual. Companies generally fire employees who charge discrimination and take their chances in the courts. Few individuals can actually afford to sue and the companies know this. They drag out the litigation which they are able to do lawfully. Few plaintiffs get proper representation of their grievances and by the time they get a trial their lives are in tatters. Even if they get a trial, there are years of expensive appeals flowing any decision. The reality is that very, very few individuals–and even fewer women–get justice through our court system.
The truth is that so long as sexism and gender discrimination is acceptable in our society it will continue to be the way business is conducted. The courts’ decisions don’t really affect most women and certainly do not frighten most of corporate America. They include line items in their budgets to pay for these legal costs of doing business, as they like….
I’m pleased to see this legislation pass, but sadly I don’t think it really matters….
ACPC–I have heard others say that there are so many ways to discriminate against someone if that is the intent–sneaky ways.
I am hoping that more messages are being sent, though.
In my day job (research and professional ethics), for example, the incidence of mental health professionals sexually exploiting their therapy patients seems to have diminished greatly as ethics codes condemning sexually intimate behavior with patients, research demonstrating the damage done to patients, and the devastating consequences for therapists themselves (divorce, loss of license, etc.) are brought out into the daylight.
I am hoping this bill will be helpful in that regard. But your point remains totally valid. Continuing with my example, the incidence of exploiting clients sexually will never be zero.
I don’t think it does either for all of the reasons you stated. Businesses will just change job titles and the wording of responsibilities from the same job held by a man and justify the pay difference that way. How in the hell would a woman know most of the time if they are being pay discriminated against anyway?
lol, pat. I read the arguement between Julie D and Sam Copeland. Its easy to see that Julie D was logically correct. Whoever Sam is, good for him. but he lost this one.
Maybe a quick look at the NYTimes EDITORIAL will clear up some of the questions. Not one to rain on BO’s parade (HA!) but I had to read it twice and kept blinking to make sure what I was reading … just to make sure …
The Lily Ledbetter Act did not include the Fair Pay Act! The House passed both. The Senate ONLY ONE!
Here’s the NYTimes
After signing the corrective measure, Mr. Obama ought to press Congress to continue the fight for equal pay for equal work by passing a second bill — the Paycheck Fairness Act — that would further strengthen current laws against gender-based wage discrimination. Among other things, this bill, which Mr. Obama co-sponsored while in the Senate, would make stronger remedies available under the existing Equal Pay Act; ensure that courts require employers to show that wage disparities are job-related, not sex-based, and consistent with business needs; and protect employees who discuss salary information from retaliation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/opinion/28wed3.html
Please read the whole article for clairification between the two, the Fair Pay Act and the Lily Ledbetter Act which extends the time allowed to sue for discrimination to 180 days.
Of course Lily opens the door to those who are discriminated against and who can and do take it to court, but PO sponsored the Fair Pay Act in the Senate and it has not yet been passed.
The Times, for some obscure reason, thinks that the Senate with the Democratic Majority who does not need one republican vote to pass anything (unless the Blue Dogs pee all over the fire hydrant) needs to bring republicans on board. NOT if Democrats do the right thing – ALL Democrats!
The Bamboozler-in-Chief does it again! My bad! I fell for it too!
Thanks for this–checking it out!
But as Congresswoman Barbara Mikulski (D-RI) put it, “If you don’t want to be sued, don’t discriminate!”
It certainly doesn’t help the argument when you don’t get your facts straight… SENATOR Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).
“If you don’t want to be sued, don’t discriminate!” Not exactly true Mikulski. Now lawsuits can be brought for discrimination back 20 or even 30 years. How many private companies keep payroll records that long? Exactly. Hell state agencies do not likely have such records. Yet it can happen because pension checks would be under the ANY check rule.
So now you can have a private company that maybe keeps payroll records for 10 years with a pension plan. Someone makes a claim that pay discrimination happened 20 years ago 1 month after her last pension check. What defense can the company use as its a they said she said since they have no records? Fact is, they can’t and sexual pay discrimination lawsuits will become the new “slip and fall” lawsuit.
It is my understanding that the 180 day law is not retroactive.
Cassie…you are correct. The Ledbetter Act only deals with changing the statute of limitations to file suit,using each receipt of a paycheck to start the 180 days versus the old rule of 180 days from the “initial occurrence.” That’s it! And, it covers all protected classes not just women, as someone said earlier. Here’s the summary from the Library of Congress:
S.181 Title: 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.
You are right to rain on his damn parade because he and his majority buddies in Congress have deftly bamboozled women – yet again. The “Fair Pay Act” in the Ledbetter title was meant to mislead and give the Changeling and his cronies something about which to crow. The real pay equity bill – the Paycheck Fairness Act – was a companion bill to Ledbetter which was introduced in the House by Congresswoman Rosa Delauro and just passed in the House on 1/09/09. If you read the text, you’ll see where the real meat and potatoes for gender pay equity was.
H.R.1338 Title: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] (introduced 3/6/2007) Cosponsors (230)
Related Bills: H.RES.1388, S.766
Latest Major Action: 8/1/2008 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
House Reports: 110-783
When it reached the Senate, Hill became the sponsor of S.766 – same bill. This is the bill that would have made a difference to women because, unlike Ledbetter, it is a gender-specific bill attempting to level the playing field, as it were, between men and women and it would have made it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees who shared pay information among other things. Pat you can read the text of the bill here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.766:
This bill went to committee where it will likely languish and die because it involves approporiations for training for women and girls that neither party is willing to approve and it holds employers to some pretty strict accountability. But when I read this from Nancy Pelosi on the passage of Ledbetter, I knew she and the rest of the blathering herd had pulled a fast one:
“Q: I was just wondering, Speaker Pelosi, what the next workers’ rights bill that you attempt to take up will be?
Speaker Pelosi. Well, we have paycheck fairness, sponsored by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, which Mr. Miller passed out of his committee, and with the leadership of Mr. Hoyer, on the floor passed and was sent over to the Senate. So we hope that eventually that will become law someday, too, because that’s the obvious next step.” (emphasis mine).
Here’s the link to that entire piece of high drama and bullshit:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090128/pl_usnw/pelosi___with_passage_of_lilly_ledbetter_fair_pay_act__congress_has_injected_fairness__reason_and_common_sense
So my sisters, don’t celebrate nor congratulate them – they just chose the one they thought could get through in 100 days it seems. After wearing the hell out of Lilly’s story during his campaign, I figured this one would go. Oh and Pat, I do believe Ledbetter is retroactive.
Keep your Bullshit meters finely tuned when dealing with this crew because IMHO, they’re just talking the talk. I’m still waiting fir that change that’s gonna come (Trust me, Obama notwithstanding, Sam Cooke’s doing sommersaults in his grave for the way Obama & Co co-opted his very, real expressions of the need for change!)