White House Threatens To Veto Employment Discrimination Legislation
In Ledbetter, the female plaintiff alleged that past sex discrimination had resulted in lower pay increases and that these past pay decisions continued to affect the amount of her pay throughout her employment, resulting in a significant pay disparity between her and her male colleagues by the end of her nearly twenty year career. Under Title VII, a plaintiff is required to file suit within 180 days after an alleged unlawful employment practice has occurred. Although the plaintiff in Ledbetter argued that each paycheck she received constituted a new violation of the statute and therefore reset the clock with regard to filing a claim, the Court rejected this argument, reasoning that even if employees suffer continuing effects from past discrimination, their claims are time barred unless filed within the specified number of days of the original discriminatory act.
Catherine Fisk, Duke University professor of law, previewed the Ledbetter case in this blog post. Fatima Goss Graves, Senior Counsel at the National Women's Law Center, provided additional analysis of the case and the legislation before Congress. The Post also ran this editorial. ACS explored three other employment discrimination cases before the Court in this press briefing from February 2008.
Written By:Maurice Kane On April 23, 2008 11:52 AM Written By:Duh On April 23, 2008 12:28 PM
Maurice,
Clearly, the Court only takes easy questions.
The Ledbetter decision not only correctly interpreted the law, it didn't keep victims of pay discrimination from suing after 180 days.
Ledbetter only said that ONE LAW -- Title VII -- has a 180 day deadline for bringing claims.
Other laws banning pay discrimination have much longer deadlines -- like the Equal Pay Act, which Congress intended as the primary weapon against pay discrimination. The Equal Pay Act has a three-year deadline; 42 U.S.C. 1981 has a four-year deadline.
Most pay discrimination victims can meet those longer deadlines. The few who can't would be relying on stale evidence that prejudices employers even if they are innocent.
Unfortunately, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 would effectively eliminate the statute of limitations entirely in many such cases, allowing such stale and unreliable claims.
Just because something (allegedly) tangentially affects your paycheck in some remote way doesn't mean you should be able to wait until you retire to sue over it.
I don't believe that Ledbetter can be squared with other Title VII interpretations. The 180 day statute of limitations applies to discrete acts. Ongoing acts are different. It's law school 101 - if I trespass on your property your statute of limitations does not run when I enter your property but rather when I leave it.
The core purpose of Title VII was to end race discrimination against Blacks, discrimination that was ongoing against Blacks. Can you really argue that a Black worker, paid less than his White counterparts, could only sue under Title VII if he filed with the EEOC in the first 180 days of employment? That after 180 days the employer has carte blanc to engage in discrimination so long as the employee did not immediately complain?
Blacks and women don't have to sue over pay discrimination in the first 180 days, and the Supreme Court never said they did.
42 U.S.C. 1981, which bans racial discrimination in pay, employment, and other contractual provisions, has a four-year deadline for suing.
The Equal Pay Act, which bans gender discrimination in pay, has a three-year statute of limitations.
180 days is only the deadline under Title VII, not under the Equal Pay Act or 42 U.S.C. 1981. Why Lilly Ledbetter's lawyer chose to pursue an appeal only under Title VII, which has the shortest deadline, is a mystery to me.
The United States Supreme Court interpreted the 180-day filing requirement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as it was enacted by the United States Congress. No injustice occurred