|
One of the most outrageous recent cases that proved how extremist this Court is, and that it actually is not even follwing legal precedent anymore, was the Lilly Ledbetter vs. Goodyear discrimination case, with its bizarre decision and "rationale." Although completely ignored by the male media, it got attention--shocked, worried, angry--from women who learned about it.
After years of increasing pay discrimination, a wider and wider gap between the pay, benefits and (therefore) later pension of Ledbetter--a model employee who had won awards--and all males, even those lower on the scale, had finally been brought to her attention by an anonymous male also working in that area of Goodyear, it confirmed her suspicions about discrimination, and she filed a suit.
Because pay is kept confidential, and because, as the only woman in a hostile work environment, she had been afraid to confront anyone until there was proof, she did not have the evidence until years later. Discrimination law had always taken account of this fact of life, and so the standard of proof was that it had to be filed "180 days" after the incident occured or was first learned of, or with a case like this where it was ongoing, the "180 day rule" kept re-instating itself, as a reoccurring discrimination. All this was thrown out by the Court, which put forward a claim that the suit had been "filed too late" as it was past the "180 day" limit, from years ago when the very first pay disparity had occurred, even though it was not known by the victim then, and could not have been asked about in that environment--a judgment unheard of by a court before this! This was not even the law as stated. Ledbetter had already won a $3 million judgment by a jury, so the case had been proved, and that was ignored. Evidence of discrimination and hostile treatment was ignored and thrown out, although it had been part of the earlier case. 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 reported by Linda Greenhouse of the NY Times; it was not even part of the Supreme Court filing. Even Justice Ginsburg made a public dissent on the case, and noted that it was not a legal decision, but an expression of the (all-male) Judges' narrow political opinions and lack of experience of what the victim had suffered, or how.
This Court has made many inexplicable decisions favoring corporations over employees, consumers, citizens, etc., the like of which had never, since the 1800s, been reached by any Court. It is frightening, and the Democrats flummoxed themselves right into this nightmare of a mess, not opposing these horrific nominations, by believing their own "D"LC lies, that this is a "conservative country," etc., when it is not.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
