Friday, July 13, 2007

Standing Up To The Supremes

As noted in this story, Democratic House Representative George Miller and Senator Hillary Clinton are responding to the recent ruling by Hangin’ Judge J.R.’s Supreme Court in the Ledbetter pay discrimination case.

A lower court had awarded Lilly Ledbetter, a longtime supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber's plant in Gadsden, Alabama, damages after it agreed with her that a series of actions by Goodyear, including at least one negative performance review, had ended up lowering her pay far below that of her male coworkers. However, the ruling was overturned by an appeals court, and that ruling was upheld by the Supremes, because they decided she had waited too long to file her case beyond the 180 days of the discriminatory act that led to her underpayment.

However, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in dissent that similar prior rulings had decided that each instance of pay discrimination amounted to a new violation, thus starting up the 180-day counter all over. But Roberts, Alito and the rest of the Gang of Five didn’t see it that way.

Based on the New York Times story, however, Miller and Clinton (along with Ted Kennedy) are trying to write into law that which was commonly understood by reasonable people up until now…

The House measure would direct a return to the interpretation of the civil rights law in which each unfair paycheck perpetuates discrimination. The measure would also apply to other forms of compensation like benefits.



Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, plans to introduce a similar bill, whose details are still being worked out.
And of course, the typical Repug apologists are complaining that the move would “gut the statute of limitations” by creating an open-ended timeline, according to Howard P. McKeon of California.

That of course is not true, and, as noted from this link, there are other strategies available for employees seeking compensation if they believe they have been victims of pay discrimination (I’m not taking issue with the Godfrey and Kahn analysis since I have no grounds to do so, but I still cannot help but wonder how anyone could surmise that Ledbetter had dropped her Equal Pay Act claim and weaken her case, unless her or her attorney wrongly assumed that the Supremes would honor standing case law).

I (and I’m sure a great many others) will keep an eye on whatever legislation emerges from Rep. Miller and Sens. Clinton/Kennedy as a result of what Justice Ginsburg correctly (I think) termed a “parsimonious” reading of the law by five of her colleagues.

No comments: