This is why we need to elect Democrats

[question everything]

this is why the ones who are upset about the recent Iraq vote and who swear they will not vote for any Democrats will fact this:

The Wall Street Journal

High Court Limits Time For Filing Bias Lawsuits
By JESS BRAVIN and MARK H. ANDERSON
May 30, 2007; Page A6

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court handed employers a victory with a ruling that businesses can't be sued for years-old discrimination, even if such actions continue to harm an employee in the form of lower pay than he or she otherwise would be entitled to.

In a 5-4 ruling that underscored the court's conservative-liberal split, the court gave teeth to the tight deadlines of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which require complaints to be filed as soon as 180 days after a discriminatory act occurs. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the "discrete act" in this instance was the initial decision to underpay the employee, even if it unfairly lowered the base from which future raises would be calculated.

(snip)

The suit was brought by Lilly Ledbetter, an employee of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s Gadsden, Ala., plant. She alleged that in the early 1980s, after she refused a supervisor's sexual advances, he retaliated against her with unfavorable reports that led to diminished pay. Starting from this lower base, by 1997 she was earning $3,700 a month as an area manager, in contrast with male colleagues of similar rank who earned $4,300 to $5,200 a month. Ms. Ledbetter, who retired in 1998, argued that each paycheck was in itself a discriminatory act, rather than the violation being limited to the initial retaliatory act, and sought compensation for her entire career. A federal district court agreed, and a jury awarded her $224,000 in back pay and $3.28 million in punitive damages, although the award was reduced to $360,000.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, however, agreeing with Goodyear that a six-month statute of limitations applied to Title VII discrimination suits, thus limiting Ms. Ledbetter's recoveries to recent salary history. In addition, the Atlanta appeals court found that Ms. Ledbetter didn't sufficiently prove discrimination within that period. Yesterday's Supreme Court decision is good news for corporations, which worried the justices might open companies up to pay claims stretching back years prior to the filing of a discrimination lawsuit. The ruling "eliminates a potential windfall against employers by employees trying to dredge up stale pay claims," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a statement.

Dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court's only woman, said the majority "does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination." "Pay disparities often occur ... in small increments; only over time is there strong cause to suspect discrimination is at work," she wrote in an opinion joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118044756725017154.html (subscription)

[Erika]

1. The USSC is now a joke

They discount women every much as do the Taliban. Given to you by the Dems who allowed the radicals Thomas; Alito; and Roberts on the Court.

The right wing male fanatics have turned this court into a world joke.

[elocs]

2. While we here at DU pontificate on the big issues such as Iraq, or impeachment,

or if Gore is going to be a candidate, there are millions of regular Americans who live lives of quiet desperation and need help on small, but important things to them such as health care, discrimination. or their jobs. They depend upon their Democratic representatives and senators to help them with these things. Apparently they have yet to learn that we know best and that all of these Democrats are cowards and spineless because they voted to continue funding the war for another 4 months. It doesn't matter that these same Democrats help these regular people get through the problems in their daily lives giving them help on matters that are not of great importance to us, but mean the world to them. We are a little self-centered in that respect inasmuch as our big issues are the ones of paramount importance.

[question everything]

3. Excellent observations

And even on DU some of us did try to express our minority opinion, including the fact that the recent Iraq bill included important domestic laws, including the raise in minimum wage.

But no, all DUers care is about the self centered one woman who could not take the heat that comes for anyone who takes center stage.

I am glad that there are only 100,000 DUers, hoping that most Democrats will not abandon the party they way they did in 1968 - when Nixon won, or in 2000 with Nader when... we know.

After all, many of the new members in Congress will never pass all the "litmus tests" that we demand. Not only about Iraq, but about women's privacy and about domestic programs. Many of them are "pro business" but we realize that we need the majority. Many here supported Harold Ford Jr. from TN who lost, but who certainly would have voted to extend the funding.

As long as we don't have the draft, most voters do not feel that they are directly affected by the war, even though they are sick and tired of being on the losing end. If by any miracle the "surge" will succeed, the opinion will turn, again.

But most Americans, as you so clearly pointed out, are concerned about jobs, and access to health care, and education and dignified retirement.

Thank you for your post.