posted on May 30, 2007 11:59:21 AM new
The conservatives won another battle in their war on women.
Supreme Court limits employers’ liability in pay-bias claims
May 29, 2007
By MARK SHERMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today limited workers’ ability to sue employers for pay discrimination that results from decisions made years earlier.
The court, in a 5-4 ruling, said that employers would otherwise find it difficult to defend against claims “arising from employment decisions that are long past.”
The case concerned how to apply a 180-day deadline for complaining about discriminatory pay decisions under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Lilly Ledbetter sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., claiming that after 19 years at the company’s Gadsden, Ala., plant, she was making $6,000 a year less than the lowest-paid man doing the same work.
Ledbetter claimed the disparity existed for years and was primarily a result of her gender. A jury agreed, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because she had waited too long to begin her lawsuit.
The deadline set in the law means nothing if employees can reach back years to claim discrimination, the company argued to the court.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, agreed that Ledbetter’s claim was untimely.
The decision broke along ideological lines, with the court’s four liberal justices dissenting.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who once led the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, sided with Goodyear.
Five years ago, Thomas joined his liberal colleagues in a 5-4 decision that made it easier for victims to complain about long-term job discrimination or harassment when shabby treatment was extended over a period of months or years.
Ledbetter argued that each paycheck that was smaller than those received by similarly situated men amounted to a new discriminatory act. She didn’t sue earlier, Ledbetter said, because employees are less willing to rock the boat when they are new on the job and have no reason to believe there could be such pay disparity.
The EEOC, which is responsible for investigating workplace discrimination claims, said Ledbetter’s claims could go forward.
After a trial, she was initially awarded more than $3.8 million. A judge reduced the award to $360,000.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict. The appeals court said Ledbetter mainly was complaining about decisions made by her supervisors long ago, well after the deadline for raising allegations of discrimination.
The NAACP, AARP and other civil rights groups sided with Ledbetter, saying employers would not suffer any consequences for recurring discrimination if they could rebuff allegations merely by arguing that the deadline for complaining about the first episode passed.
Goodyear denied discriminating against Ledbetter. She received periodic raises despite being ranked near the bottom of her group of workers, the company said.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business said that if the court had ruled for the worker in this case, employers would be subject to damages for innocent decisions made years ago that would be difficult to defend because of the passage of time.
The case is Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 05-1074.
posted on May 30, 2007 01:46:58 PM new
Under the court's decision, an employee must sue within a 180-day deadline of a decision involving pay if the employee think it involves their race, sex, religion or national origin.
posted on May 30, 2007 02:30:45 PM new
Yup, why not make all laws retroactive. Or havent you ever heard of a "statute of limitations".
High court limits job-bias claims
Discrimination from years ago doesn't qualify, justices say
By GREG STOHR
Bloomberg News
Workers can't sue under a federal job-bias law to claim they are underpaid because of gender or race discrimination that occurred years earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a victory for employers.
The justices, voting 5-4, rejected a $360,000 award to Lilly Ledbetter, an Alabama Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. worker who said that almost two decades of discrimination meant her salary was 15 to 40 percent lower than what her male counterparts earned.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act typically gives workers 180 days from the time of the alleged discrimination to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The question was whether workers can claim that their most recent paychecks are affected by bias that took place outside the 180-day window.
"Current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. "Ledbetter should have filed an EEOC charge within 180 days after each allegedly discriminatory pay decision was made and communicated to her."
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined Alito's opinion.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the unusual step of reading a summary of her dissent from the bench. She said the majority "does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination."
"Today's decision counsels: Sue early on, when it is uncertain whether discrimination accounts for the pay disparity you are experiencing," Ginsburg said.
The ruling left open the possibility that women can win similar claims under the Equal Pay Act, which lets female workers sue when male counterparts receive higher wages for doing the same work.
Ledbetter originally invoked the Equal Pay Act, later dropping that claim.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
[ edited by Bear1949 on May 30, 2007 02:43 PM ]
posted on May 30, 2007 06:36:36 PM new
No, fathead, I posted one story ( in it's entirety)and you posted another...doesn't change the facts ...neocons on the Supreme Court are carrying on the war against women....
posted on May 31, 2007 10:29:44 AM new
Oh, linduh, you can't answer the questions so its trot out
Squirm No. 1: You're too stupid to answer the questions so you say I'm obsessed with you
I think you are obsessed with no backbone and just CAN'T answer the questions LOL!!!
posted on May 31, 2007 11:04:31 AM new
Helenjw
posted on January 1, 2007 03:56:17 PM
Oh, cut the crap, Mingo. Here, like at OTWA your clinging attention to Linda exacerbates the problem. If you want to continue it's certainly your prerogative to do so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
posted on May 31, 2007 05:43:50 PM new
Helenjw
posted on January 1, 2007 03:56:17 PM
Oh, cut the crap, Mingo. Here, like at OTWA your clinging attention to Linda exacerbates the problem. If you want to continue it's certainly your prerogative to do so.
