(Supreme) Court Limits Suits for Pay Bias

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Court Limits Suits for Pay Bias

By MARK SHERMAN
Tuesday, May 29, 2007; 10:15 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/29/AR2007052900740.html

[Triana]

1. Chalk up another one for the mysogenists. (n/t)

[bemildred]

2. Who can forget the USSC's own whining about how THEY don't get paid enough?

But heaven forfend any working peon sue for wage discrimination.

[LostinVA]

3. Beat me to it!

[LiberalFighter]

8. Let's throw that in their face every time they bring up their salary.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Making way for true fascism to reign supreme.

[DemKR]

5. "Pro-business conservatives"

don't give a damn I guess about pay equality. Way to get the woman vote.

[underpants]

6. 180 days? You only have 6 months??

Oh I see we don't want to get in the way of the chance of someone getting a dividend from one of these poor little corporations huh?

[JDPriestly]

7. Does the law need to be changed?

The 180-day statute may in effect prohibit lawsuits re pay discrimination since the damages after 180 days may not be great enough to pay for the lawsuit (attorney, filing fees, etc.). Does anyone practice law in this area? How does this work?

[LiberalFighter]

9. That is what someone on NPR stated Ginsberg wanted Congress to do

[Toots]

10. Bingo

The only way to fix this injustice is to change the law. How was she supposed to know she was being paid so much less then the men? Did the Company tell her how much they paid the other managers? That is confidential information and to put a 180 day limit on her ability to seek address is beyond the pale IMO. It may have taken years and years for her to come to the realization that in fact she was being paid less. This is the Right Wing Court in action the the Conservatives are willing to trade the US constitution for...

[spanone]

11. The real bu$h* legacy is just getting started.....Supreme Court

[BlueIris]

18. Yep.

[kskiska]

12. Justices’ Ruling Limits Suits on Pay Disparity

Source: NYT

WASHINGTON, May 29 — The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for many workers to sue their employers for discrimination in pay, insisting in a 5-to-4 decision on a tight time frame to file such cases. The dissenters said the ruling ignored workplace realities.

The decision came in a case involving a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., the only woman among 16 men at the same management level, who was paid less than any of her colleagues, including those with less seniority. She learned that fact late in a career of nearly 20 years — too late, according to the Supreme Court’s majority.

The court held on Tuesday that employees may not bring suit under the principal federal anti-discrimination law unless they have filed a formal complaint with a federal agency within 180 days after their pay was set. The timeline applies, according to the decision, even if the effects of the initial discriminatory act were not immediately apparent to the worker and even if they continue to the present day.

From 2001 to 2006, workers brought nearly 40,000 pay discrimination cases. Many such cases are likely to be barred by the court’s interpretation of the requirement in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that employees make their charge within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/washington/30scotus.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1180494116-M2G4LxdMpsnZ7jZvxP1OaA

[Mythsaje]

13. And with non-disclosure agreements re: revealing their pay to other employees...

How's a person necessarily going to know within 180 days?

How conveeenient.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. What? A person is prohibited to tell coworkers how much he makes? WTH?

Oh well, I guess free speech can be limited by anybody as long as it isn't the government. :sarcasm:

[Rage for Order]

16. That's pretty much a standard in the workplace

Every place I've worked had a policy in place making it a fireable offense to discuss your own or other employees' compensation. Of course it still happens, but if your employer finds out about it it's grounds for termination.

I don't see this as a free speech issue. The employer is paying you to be there. Employees aren't allowed to reveal trade secrets of the company they work for, and it's reasonable to have a policy that prohibits people from revealing employee compensation.

[happyslug]

21. Most non-unionized company have that rule.

The rule that you can NOT tell your fellow employees your salary (and ask them what is their salary) is considered an anti-union activity, but unless you are willing to fight (and have a Union behind you) the rule is effective is making sure workers do NOT know who is earning what.

[Rage for Order]

14. Not the end of the world

The justices essentially said that the law, as written, imposes a statute of limitations on suing for discrimination. This makes sense, because most employers do not retain most records indefinitely, so if the accusation is made, say, 15 years after the fact (the woman in the case in the article worked for Goodyear for nearly 20 years) much of the documentation regarding the situation could be gone, and some witnesses will have changed jobs, relocated, retired, or died. That said, 180 days isn't nearly a big enough window to allow lawsuits. Congress needs to amend the law and state the amount of time that someone has to bring a lawsuit after the offense is committed (as long as it's not infinity).

[happyslug]

17. Here is the actual Opinion, if anyone wants to read it:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1074.pdf

[nolabels]

19. Doesn't this logic give credence to the fact ...........

Well I got three years of bills stacked up but i am only going to pay six months of them because the rest would be too much of a burden on me :shrug:


Like you short change somebody or overcharge and get paid for it for years, then also are you only entitled to pay back six months of the overcharges. Did these fools actually pass the math tests in elementary schools or what :crazy:

No doubt some them might also be worried about the Dred-Scot ruling, basically it was those last few rulings by the pre-civil war SCOTUS that sent the US into a sundering ball of flames and fire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

[happyslug]

20. Most Statutes of Limitation are Four Years in duration

Since the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code in the 1950s and its four Statute of Limitation, most statute of limitations have changed to Four Years.

There are exceptions, for example if you want to file a Civil Rights action Against the Police you must do so within six MONTHs of finding the facts to support the action (For example when the Pennsylvanian State Police railroaded a Teacher on a Pedophile case, the teacher waited till he was released from Jail before he filed his lawsuit against the Officer. Since that was more than six months after he found the evidence that he had been framed, his lawsuit was dismissed (After he had found the evidence it still took him almost a year to get out of Prison, the fact he was in prison was ruled NOT grounds for delaying the lawsuit).

The police and the Federal, State and Local Government LIKE the six moths statute of Limitation when they are the likely defendants.

As to the Banks, it can be worse, most states use a Four year statue of limitation my home state of Pennsylvania says if debt was made "Under Seal" the time period is 21 years. Action on torts is often 2 years.

The real problem here is NOT the six month statute of Limitation, but when does it start to run. For example if you do NOT pay your Credit Card for four years (48 Months) the Credit Card can NO longer sue you for the amount of the Credit card debt, but if you had sent in a $10 partial payment, then the statute re-start whenever you made that payment. This is true EVEN IF THE STATUTE HAD ALREADY RUN. What this decision said that rule (the rule for Credit Card debt) does NOT apply to Civil Rights Violation. The mere fact your pay is reduced do to discrimination, does NOT stop the stature of Limitation from Running (Unlike failure to pay your credit card, where a payment re-starts the running of the Statute of Limitation).

Hopefully Congress will step in and change the above rule. Given that the Police, local, state and Federal Government all like the six month rule I just do NOT see Congress changing them (Corporations like it also, so they will lobby to make sure the Law stays as it is).

Given the above, I just do NOT see Congress changing the six months rule (This is my preferred Option) but I can see Congress saying that continuing affect of discrimination continues the Six months period of limitation (The issue in this case).

[mvd]

22. Unfortunately, the only conservative justice with any..

mind of his own is Kennedy. And he's to the right of O'Connor. Any Bush picks will not surprisingly do his bidding.