Fair-Wage Bill Clears The Senate

[scytherius]

Source: Washington Post

The measure, approved 61 to 36, would overturn a Supreme Court decision to make it easier for women to sue employers for pay inequity, regardless of when the discrepancies took place. It may become the first legislation signed by President Obama, who campaigned in favor of it.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012201787.html?hpid=topnews

---

How times continue to change. LOVE it.

[pleah]

1. K&R I love that it will overturn the Supreme Court ruling.!

:evilgrin:

[meegbear]

2. It's just sad they had to pass this law ...

equal pay for equal work; leave to the repugs in the SC to be against that

[Jambalaya]

4. Doing the right thing

Hey, they had to wage a war to abolish slavery. What about giving women the right to vote? Think that was done voluntarily? Allowing interracial couples to marry? Integrate schools? The list goes on....

The power structure in this country does not relinquish its power voluntarily.

It is rarely about whats right or wrong ,but what they can damn well get away with.

What IS sad is that the citizens of this country have abdicated their outrage.

Sheep for the shearing....and we're ALL getting clipped.

[redqueen]

14. Once again, wish I could rec posts.

:thumbsup:

[Thothmes]

15. They actually had to amend the constitution

to end slavery. The war did not change the legal status of slavery in the United States. The XIII amendment to the Constitution ended slavery. It was passed to get around the Supreme Court's Dred Scott Decision.

[pleah]

5. Yes, it is sad, but apparently you have to fight for everything.

[Belial]

6. I think this was the main reason they were against..

"The bill would greatly ease the statute-of-limitations requirements -- too much so, said Republican opponents, who warned that civil courts would be clogged with frivolous lawsuits."

[meegbear]

7. Perhaps, but their argument was bullshit ...

finding out years later that you're being underpaid and told "too bad" because you didn't file a complaint within 180 days of it first happening is total bullshit.

[Belial]

8. LOL.. not saying it isn't bullshit.. Just quoting part of the article

[pinqy]

11. It is...but that's NOT what happened to Ledbetter

From http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-1074.html">Ledbetter v Goodyear

Ledbetter makes no claim that intentionally discriminatory conduct occurred during the charging period or that discriminatory decisions occurring before that period were not communicated to her. She argues simply that Goodyear's nondiscriminatory conduct during the charging period gave present effect to discriminatory conduct outside of that period.

She DID know she was discriminated against, and that that discriminatory evaluation would affect her pay, but DID NOT file suit during the time limit.

The weirdness of the new legistlation is that if an individual was intitially hired at a discriminatory wage or salary, it's possible for him/her to sue years later even if every subsequent pay raise percentage was higher than everyone else's, and each so receiving a higher raise would still be considered an act of discrimination.

[happyslug]

16. Yes, rather then risk LOSING her job and waiting years to get it back, she made no objection

In Ledbetter the person discriminated against stayed with her employer for several years till she retired do to the fact she understood that if she objected to her pay she would be fired. The law permits such termination on the grounds you are a "At will" employee. You can then sue the employer for discrimination, which can take YEARS. Years you have no money coming in, no money for your family, your bills and yourself. Given that situation most people accept the discrimination rather then risk NOT having an Income. Companies rely on this, so they can commit such discrimination (provided the person discriminated against is NOT fired) without fear of being sued. The companies know they are in the driver's seat and all they have to do is wait out the victims.

This is what the Plaintiff did in this case, she did NOT object for she feared for her job. Later, after she had retired and had a secure source of Income, independent of her employer, she saw the full effect of the discrimination against her and filed a claim. The Case went to trail, and the Jury found in her favor, but only for the early part of her time with her employer, no discrimination was found in the 180 days BEFORE she filed her lawsuit (i.e. after all her employer could do to her was to force her into retirement). The trial court ruled in her favor based on the finding of the Jury, but the Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court reversed, holding that subsequent affect of earlier act of discrimination, that was NOT objected to, is NOT a renewal of the older act of discrimination and since the acts of discrimination was more then 180 days before she filed with her EEOC the case should be dismissed. The rationale used by the court was that while the action was filed within 180 days of the last act that clearly showed the effect of the previous discrimination, it was 180 AFTER the actual act of discrimination, and thus outside the 180 statute of limitation period.

180 days is a very short statute of limitation period. In Contracts (such you your credit card) the statute of limitation does NOT start to run till you stop making payments and then runs Four years in many states (Some states have LONGER periods). Most Crimes can be brought within TWO years of the crime NOT the 1/2 year used in Discrimination cases. The only set of laws with shorter Statute of Limitations is actions against Police Officers for violations of your rights, in many states that can be as short as 90 days (and does NOT stop running because you are in Jail, it runs from the minute you find out some officer framed you, even if it takes six months to get to a Judge to set you free. Many years ago a Teacher was framed by an Officer, but because he waited till AFTER he was released from Jail NOT within 90 days of his finding out who and how he was framed, the case was dismissed do to the very short statute of limitations that apply to Police Officers).

Statute of Limitations are good, they tell people to file in the Court by a set time period OR the case will be dismissed. In contracts it is even possible to renew an Statute of Limitations that has expired, if you made payments AFTER the period of expiration of the Statute of Limitations. This is done mostly after some Credit Card realized the Statute of Limitations had expired, makes an "Offer" to settle the account in exchange for agreeing to pay 10-25-50% of the original debt. When the debtor defaults on that promise, the WHOLE debt is viewed as renewed by the courts (The debtor's consideration is the promise by the Credit Card NOT to sue under the original contract, thus a valid Contract. This is true even if the statute of limitation has long expired on the original contract.

I am sorry, given the different bargaining power of individuals and most employers, the fear of losing your job outweighs most people's desire to seek justice. A 180 statute of Limitations is just to short a time period, especially given the four years statute of limitation when it comes to other forms of Contracts (and that such Statute ONLY starts to run when the debtor stops making payments, it continues to run as long as any payments are being made, even if less then the interest on the debt). To say she could have filed an action with the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) does NOT protect her from retaliation, including being fired UNTIL the court rule such termination was illegal (When it comes to Unionization activities, it is illegal for an employer to fire employees for unionization activities, but it is done all the time, the courts put the employee back in, three to four months later, but that is three to four months WITHOUT a paycheck, through such union organizers have the union to fall back on for both financial AND legal support, most non-unionized employees, like the plaintiff in this case, do not).

Yes, the Plaintiff did NOT object to the discrimination when it first happened, but most people in her circumstances would NOT have done so. That does NOT Make it the right thing to do, but most people are more afraid of NOT having Income then anything else in their lives. It is fully understandable, and should be treated more like the case when Credit Card Companies can sue you within four years of the last time you made a payment then like Police Officers who railroad people.

[BanTheGOP]

10. GOOD!

I HOPE the courts get clogged...it will do two things.

1. First and foremost...get corporations and republicanist ceo scumbuckets to settle out of court with a fair retribution.
2. Increase the pressure on the Obama administration to fast track progressive judges onto the circuits.

[SemperEadem]

13. like Norm Coleman's frivolous lawsuits...

seems no one cares when it's a thug pig doing the frivolous suing.

[Ex Lurker]

9. what about comparable worth n/t

[happyslug]

17. The case being reversed only dealt with the 180 Statute of Limitations

The actual claim was a denial of an job that lead the males who were offered the job to higher paying jobs later on in their career with the company. Since the Woman did NOT file a discrimination action within 180 days of the INITIAL act of Discrimination, the court ruled the case was barred by the Statute of Limitations. i.e. since she did NOT file with the EEOC within 180 days of the original act of discrimination, she was time barred from filing when the latest set of promotion were made. i.e. she lost her chance of a promotion because she did NOT get a chance to do the earlier job that had been offered to the males of her company but not to her. She did file within 180 days of the latest act of discrimination, but by then the Company had a non-discriminatory reason for NOT giving her the position, she had NEVER had to earlier job, while the males all did. The fact that the reason she was denied the earlier promotion was sex discrimination was time barred for she had NOT filed within 180 days of THAT act of discrimination.

Thus this is NOT a Comparable worth case, it never reached that level. The trial Court ruled that since the earlier act of discrimination was time barred under the Statute of Limitations, the rationale that the males all had that job and she did NOT was a NON-sexist way decide who gets this later promotion.

[SemperEadem]

12. that's what happens when the pigs won't open up a can of act right/do right

it shouldn't have taken congress passing law for them to act right/do right. It just should have been the law to begin with. A $200 electric bill is still a $200 electric bill whether one has an employed husband or not. Food still costs what it costs whether one is married/single/widowed.

This is bs thinking that a woman shouldn't be paid more because all she needs is a man to take care of her. Antiquated and offensive thinking--because a woman shouldn't have to seek a husband in order to be able to have pay equity.

[Native]

3. I really do hope it's the first legislation Obama signs - that would be wonderful!