(Supreme) Court Protects Gender Discrimination

[babylonsister]

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/05/court-protects-gender-discrimintion.html

Court Protects Gender Discrimintion

As Ruth Bader Ginsburg notes, the evidence of gender discrimination in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear, decided today by the Supreme Court, is unambiguous:

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.


Despite this, and contrary to the judgment of the EEOC, the Court by a bare 5-4 majority threw out the discrimination claim she brought under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Court--in an opinion, natch, written by its arch-reactionary newest member--argued that Ledbetter failed to challenge the initial discriminatory pay decision within the required 180 days, and the ongoing pay discrimination did not constitute an "unlawful employment practice." As Ginsburg points out, this reading of the statute makes little sense; unlike a single discrete act such as a firing, an employee may not be aware of the discriminatory nature of their pay until much later, and moreover it is illogical to hold that only an initial decision to discriminate but not the discriminatory pay itself constitutes an unlawful practice. The effect of the case is to insulate employers from wage discrimination claims as long as they can hid the evidence from the employee being discriminated against for 180 days, a result contrary to the purpose of the statute that is in no way compelled by its language.

The effect of Sandra Day O'Connor being replaced by Alito is particularly stark in this case. O'Connor--who was offered only secretarial jobs after graduating third in her Stanford Law class--had a good record on gender discrimination, while Altio's record on both gender issues and civil rights claims more broadly is atrocious. The useful idiots who claimed Alito was a moderate notwithstanding, his vote in this case was inevitable; I held out a shred of optimism that Thomas and Scalia might defer to the EEOC based on the former's opinion in the Morgan case, but this was apparently hopeless optimism. Although these kinds of cases flay under the radar, this is a major way the Alito-fied Court will work to advance bad outcomes. Republicans don't have to modify or repeal civil rights legislation, and the Court's needn't strike it down; the courts and/or the executive branch can just gut the legislation by making it difficult to enforce in ways that don't attract public attention.

To end on a slightly less defeatist note, as Ginsburg did, because this is a case of statutory interpretation, Congress can respond to the Court by changing the language of the statute to override the Court's unduly narrow interpretation. They should start working to do so immediately.

[pnwmom]

1. Yes, Congress needs to get to work. And if Bush vetoes,

it would be one more giant nail in the Republican coffin.

[rurallib]

2. Just heard this on Hartmann

Unfuckingbelieveable. Maybe it is time to appeal to God like the RW wants. The God I grew up with would kick some ass on this one.
I am pissed. But then I am pissed almost every day anymore. With the Supreme Court that is pretty much it until some change happens and an entirely different case arises. Jesus Christ what is the matter with these Neanderthals?
Just think now how companies will be screwing over women. And then they'll just say "Sue me!"

Btw, did Thomas sleep through this one also? After all it was just about a woman, nothing important.

[Toots]

3. They should start working to do so immediately.

I will hold my breath....

[MasonJar]

4. Do we need anymore votes like this to tell us that there can not be

anymore Republicans in the White House or any more majorities in the Congress? The next president will probably be appointing at least 2 and maybe 3 new justices and those are all on our side. The fate of our country will be decided in 08. Also I doubt that the world is going to take much more US hubris anyway.

[Madspirit]

5. k&r...n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

6. They are trying to send us back to the dark ages

Damn these activist judges!

[Nikki Stone1]

7. Kicking, to make sure that Duers don't ignore this

:kick:

[Nikki Stone1]

8. How about a 5th recommend folks. This is at least as important as Harry Potter

Really

[Political_Junkie]

9. k & r

Damn it all! This is getting down right exhausting.

[Nikki Stone1]

10. I know. Thanks for the K & R

Now that they are in place, these social conservatives are trying to destroy all the good that came of the last 30-40 years.

[Ezlivin]

11. Damn, I sure do miss America. Where did she go?

Apart from the obvious: Straight to hell.

Sigh.

[Selatius]

12. Well, I guess we can strike out that fucking annoying piece of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Y'know, the portion that says you can't discriminate based on gender. Now, it should read that you can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, nationality, and gender.

We can't have uppity women challenging man's dominant position in society. They must be made to obey.

:sarcasm:

The Democrats should've filibustered to hell and back Alito and Roberts.

[Nikki Stone1]

13. But a filibuster would have meant the "nuclear" option, remember?

And remember how scared the Dems were to go after these appointments.

[Selatius]

15. Y'know, a part of me wanted them to pull the fucking trigger.

At least then we can do away with any pretense of a functioning democracy and simply deal with the cold hard reality of a one-party dictatorship.

[Nikki Stone1]

16. I know. But letting a bunch of bullies break the system for everyone was problematic

I think the Dems made the only responsible call there, but goddamn these neocon toddlers for immaturity and their leader's complete lack of moral compass.

I wish Jesus would come back and rapture this whole bunch.

[Balderdash]

14. k&r

:kick:

[Nikki Stone1]

18. A hug and a donut

:hug: :donut:

[nashville_brook]

17. it will take "an act of congress" for women to get a fair shake

[Morgana LaFey]

26. or passage and ratification of the ERA

which is probably not all that likely.

All these fools better watch out -- they're likely to waken a supremely powerful sleeping giant: women of this nation. Even many of the rightwingers want certain freedoms they're not going to want to give up. This could even be one of them.

[nashville_brook]

27. this is exactly what happened in the 60s before that wave of feminism

we give selflessly until there's nothing left and realize that we are abused for giving. happens in marriages too. this country is due for a big DIVORCE and CUSTODY BATTLE. :evilgrin:

[Morgana LaFey]

28. Hey, I'm ready! Let's rumble.

:evilgrin:

[kenny blankenship]

19. WHAT are we going to do about this flatly unacceptable "Supreme" Court?

Throwing the floor open to all ideas, since I'm at a loss for words.

[Nikki Stone1]

21. Elect progressives. Get rid of the riff raff in Congress

Then hope for some neocon SCourt heart attacks

[HardRocker05]

20. that law is f-ed up; no doubt written by congressional corporate whores. nt

[Thickasabrick]

22. Thank you for posting this - it seems this is really being downplayed

in our "liberal media". Does anyone know if the Democratic leadership has commented on this yet? To me; they basically gutted the law. Why isn't there more of an outcry about this?

[Nikki Stone1]

23. I haven't heard anything. Hell, it's even sinking on DU

This worries me more than I possibly can articulate right now.

[intheflow]

24. This is why we need to impead Bush and Cheney.

If we don't, they'll declare marshall law on Inauguration Day 2008 to keep the inevitable Democratic winner out of the WH (assuming they don't steal the election outright again). The Dems have to get control of the government again, have to show real backbone and leadership before its too late and we get even more arch conservative regressive white men on the SCOTUS.

:grr:

[Nikki Stone1]

29. Or impeach them, maybe

:D

[Kurovski]

25. K&R. NT

[Hidden Stillness]

30. A Frightening, Grim Outrage--Ignored

If this case had been about any group of males, it would be all over the corporate media, all over the speeches of Presidential candidates, and all over DU. As it is, it has been completely ignored, after an initial lying claim by the media that also of course discriminates against women.

This is the proof you need, along with some other cases, that the Supreme Court, joining their Bush/Cheney Administration, will not even pay attention to the law anymore, but will just issue judgments or denials, and dress it up with only the slightest fabricated pretense of legal precedent. As Justice Ginsburg noted however, when she suddenly read aloud the dissent--the only hopeful sign here--this was not a legal decision, but the clout of the male archconservative majority. This is a very threatening and depressing situation, and will not be solved, you can be sure.

The EEOC, Courts, etc., have never paid attention to the "180 day" time limit on an ongoing case like this, where there was not one single discriminatory event, but continues to this day--so the excuse, parroted by the male media, that she "filed late" is a lie. This requirement has never been applied for a case like this--but suddenly was here. The plaintiff, the woman discriminated against, had already won a $3 million judgment by a jury, so they proved the case. When they appealed it to this group however, all was lost.

As Ginsburg and others have noted, many people, because salaries are kept secret by corporate rule, do not even know until much later, that they are not being paid the same as male co-workers, people who are not being promoted usually deny it to themselves, and believe that it was some other cause for a long time, and very often, employees are afraid to make waves, for fear of retribution or firing. All these things make claims sometimes filed only after a delay, and then usually only when the victim of discrimination feels some support from an outside source.

This is the same Court that recently restricted availability of late-term abortions, on no legal precedent, even though they are only used for medical emergencies, threatening the lives of women. This is an Administration that has reduced the total number the Civil Rights Division cases to almost nothing. This is a Supreme Court made up of at least one member, Clarence Thomas, with a background not only containing the harrassment of a staffer, Anita Hill, and other women, but, having been appointed to the EEOC during the 1980s by that bastard Ronald Reagan specifically to derail it and do nothing to help discrimination victims, was actually almost hired away from the department by Sears, one of the defendants on a case of their discrimination against women, because Thomas had sabotaged the case so completely on their behalf. This is the total future under this group of devils.

The case decided here, Lilly Ledbetter v. Goodyear, contained many other proofs of discrimination, beyond pay disparity and lack of promotion after many years--one incident detailed that her male boss had told her that she could receive a raise, "if she went to a motel with the boss." This was described by NY Times reporter Linda Greenhouse on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" this past week; for whatever reason, it was kept out of the Supreme Court filing, even though it was proved in the lower court case.

This is a very grim era for women, and it is getting no attention at all by the male-corporate media (the same group) or by "liberals," etc., who always, always, ignore women's issues. You should listen to Martha Burk speak on this; she is right.