Now Comes Lilly Ledbetter: Obama pledges to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

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:

"Lilly Ledbetter was a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber’s plant in Gadsden, Alabama, from 1979 until her retirement in 1998. For most of those years, she worked as an area manager, a position largely occupied by men. Initially, Ledbetter’s salary was in line with the salaries of men performing substantially similar work. Over time, however, her pay slipped in comparison to the pay of male area managers with equal or less seniority. By the end of 1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236."

The Court ruled that employees subject to pay discrimination like Lilly Ledbetter must file a claim within 180 days of the employer's original decision to pay them less -- even if the employee continued to receive reduced paychecks and even if the employee did not discover the discriminatory reduction in pay until much later (check out Justice Alito's arguments in the Court's opinion). Restoring these rules means that complaints can be filed 180 days after any discriminatory paycheck.

President Obama has long championed this bill and Lilly Ledbetter's cause, and by signing it into law, he will ensure that women like Ms. Ledbetter and other victims of pay discrimination can effectively challenge unequal pay.

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

:woohoo: :hi:

I told her women with self-respect are Democrats. lol

It's true, it's been a long time coming.

who try to feed me their talking points;

Timothy 2:12;
"'But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence'... so shut up."

The funniest thing I saw on those lines;

I was following the progress of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the late 90s. A local news station in the Buffalo area did a story on the Taliban. It was pretty accurate, and therefore not too flattering. But then, for 'balanced' commentary, they interviewed a very well-appointed, wealthy, and apparently educated woman from Amherst. She was part of a 'family values' group, and yes... she supported the Taliban because they 'made women's lives more traditional'.

I shit you not.

Even funnier... given her mannerisms, appearance, and the fact that she lived in Amherst, the chances she was Jewish were very high.

Talk about twisted.


Great answer on your part... too bad she didn't get it.

:eyes:

Nothing pleases some people on the left more than shredding our own.

I am a proud "on the left" liberal/progressive but I think N.O.W. is simply being unreasonable. That is as much a centrist DLC
trait as it is a wingnut inclination when it comes to certain policy positions, so let's not point fingers at those "on the left," shall
we? I'd say many of the liberals/progressives who supported Barack from before the beginning of his campaign think that N.O.W.
is full of shit.

Apparently, they are angry and "very disappointed" that Barack's cabinet doesn't have a quota system that requires
52% of the cabinet be female, as a reflection of the general population.


:eyes:

back in April.
"Daddy, why don't Republicans want equal pay for their wives or daughters?"
Well, lets just keep working to get a Democratic majority in Congress - and maybe the White House - and there could be a chance for some more equality.
Kids. They ask the craziest questions!

She seemed really devastated by the lack of compassion and fairness by the Rethugs. This is great for all women in the United States.

We still have a lot of work, but I have high hopes that we can make some significant advancements in these next 4-8 years.

McCain voted against this. I hope he loses his seat in 2010.

McCain's autobiography -or most Republicans - could be titled "The Wrong Side of History"

NT!

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. And tens of thousands of people file Title VII complaints every year, so what specifically prevented her from doing so? IF the disparate pay had been because of a POLICY of discrimination, then each paycheck would have been considered a seperate act (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 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.

Since the Ledbetter decision was consistant with Evans, how is the new law restoring the rules?

glad to see this handled early. One step in the right direction for sure.