SEARCH
House Committee: Take This Job Ruling and Shove It |
|
 |
|
The U.S. Supreme Court on May 30 said Lilly Ledbetter didn’t act fast enough in filing a suit over nearly two decades of pay discrimination at an Alabama Goodyear plant.
How’s this for fast? Less than a month after the Supreme Court decision, the House Education and Labor Committee approved the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to rectify what Committee Chairman George Miller (D-Calf.) calls the court’s “misguided decision.” The bill now is on its way to the full House.
In the 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that workers must file pay-discrimination lawsuits within 180 days after the discrimination begins. It’s just tough luck if the worker, like Ledbetter, doesn’t become aware of the discrimination until the 180-day clock has run out.
Prior to the ruling, many courts allowed workers to sue for pay discrimination years after the initial discrimination because the courts considered each new paycheck a new discriminatory act.
Says Miller:
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear was a painful step backward for civil rights in this country. The court’s misguided decision—if allowed to stand—has harmful consequences far beyond Ms. Ledbetter’s case. It has far-reaching implications for an individual’s right to be compensated fairly for an honest day’s work, regardless of their sex or race or religion. We must not allow this ruling to stand.
The bill would clarify that every paycheck or other compensation resulting, in whole or in part, from an earlier discriminatory pay decision constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act. As long as workers file their charges within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, their charges would be considered timely.
The legislation also would clarify that after a worker files a charge, he or she need not keep filing new charges with each new paycheck. It also would apply to workers who file claims of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, color, national origin, religion, age or disability.
At a June 13 hearing (click here to see video), Ledbetter told the committee she was on the job for several years before she realized she was being paid less than men doing the same work—and then it took even longer to find evidence so she could file suit.
They [the Supreme Court] said I should have complained every time I got a smaller raise than the men, even if I didn’t know what the men were getting paid and even if I had no way to prove that the decisions were discrimination. They said that once the 180 days passes after the pay decisions is made, the worker is stuck with unequal pay for equal work under Title VII for the rest of her career and there is nothing illegal about that under the statute.
When Ledbetter did have enough information and evidence that she was being paid less than men—despite having more experience than several of them—she filed suit against Goodyear. A jury found the company had discriminated against her on the basis of her sex and awarded her back pay and more than $3 million damages
However, the Supreme Court said Ledbetter had waited too long to sue, even though she filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as soon as she received an anonymous note alerting her to pay discrimination.
While Ledbetter filed her charge within 180 days of receiving evidence of discriminatory pay, the court ruled that since Ledbetter did not raise a claim within 180 days of the employer’s decision to pay her less, she could not receive any relief.
In effect, the court told all workers who don’t discover the discriminatory pay before the 180-day limit, “Too bad, live with it.”
Under the decision, workers in Ledbetter’s position would be forced to live with discriminatory paychecks for the rest of their careers.
No Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
