Monday, May 5, 2008

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex based wage discrimination.

Lilly Ledbetter worked for 19 years at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. plant in Gadsen, AL. She received an anonymous tip that she was making $6,500 less than the lowest paid man who had her job... Lilly sued. This looked like an open and shut case. (see above)

However the law said she had to file her discrimination complaint wthin 180 days of the alleged unlawful discrimination. Since the 1990’s nine federal circuit courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had ruled that the 180s started every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 180 days began with Lilly’s first discriminatory payment about 20 years earlier. This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.

Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough support in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.

President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.

This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers.

No comments: