tripostrophe
05-31-2007, 11:40 PM
first found on racialicious with the following article:
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/17295963.htm
then googled it and found this.
http://hr.cch.com/news/employment/060107a.asp
EMPLOYMENT LAW — 6/1/07
Senators, various groups respond to Supreme Court's decision in Title VII disparate pay case
The US Supreme Court's holding in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, Inc (89 EPD ¶42,827) has made it difficult for employees to rely on the affects of past discriminatory pay decisions when alleging disparate pay. While business groups like the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) have applauded the Court's decision as being fair, women's rights groups like the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) and National Partnership for Women & Families have criticized the opinion as a step backward for working women. As a result of the Court's decision, Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) announced their intention to introduce legislation to ensure that employees are able to enforce their legal right to equal pay.
In its decision, the High Court held that employees cannot bring Title VII disparate pay claims alleging discrimination occurring outside the 180-day statute of limitations period (or 300 days if the charge also is covered by a state or local anti-discrimination law), even when a paycheck is received during that same limitations period. While new and separately actionable discriminatory acts can start a new limitations period, Title VII disparate pay actions are discrete acts "limited to each particular pay-setting decision." They begin to run when an employer makes its decision on the pay differential. There is no new violation each time a later paycheck reflecting that differential is issued. In so holding, the Court emphasized the distinction between past acts of disparate pay (which occur when employers make adverse pay decisions) and the present effects of those acts (which are found in employees' paychecks). Given that the 180-day statute of limitations period is relative short, it may be difficult for employees to learn whether they are being paid less than similarly situated coworkers. In addition, those employees may be reluctant to sue their employers for disparate pay while still employed.
Employer groups pleased. Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC), remarked that the Supreme Court's ruling "is a victory for employers because it limits how far back in time an employee may go when making a discrimination claim involving pay. If the court ruled the opposite way, employers could have been hauled into court on decades-old claims of discrimination. We commend the court for issuing a fair decision that eliminates a potential wind-fall against employers by employees trying to dredge up stale pay claims." NCLC, is the public policy law firm of the US Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation.
Agreeing with the Conrad's sentiments, NFIB executive director, Karen Harned, commented, "[w]e are thrilled with the Ledbetter decision." She continued: "[a]llowing an employee to wait years before they file a disparate pay claim is simply unfair to the defendant business. As time goes by, employees come and go and evidence of any event becomes increasingly more difficult to produce. This is why statutes of limitations are key components of our justice system. Title VII's specific charge-filing requirement, which operates as a statute of limitations, was adopted by Congress to protect employers from the burden of defending decisions made in the distant past. NFIB is pleased that the Court chose to respect the intent of the statute and decided that there must be a limit for when Title VII claims can be filed." NFIB is the nation's leading small-business advocacy association.
Decision criticized by women's rights groups. The Supreme Court's decision "severely weakens remedies for employees who have faced wage discrimination and represents a flawed interpretation of our nation's civil rights laws," stated the NWLC. "Victims of pay discrimination who did not initially know of pay disparities or were afraid to file a complaint now will have no effective remedy against discrimination, even when it continues," said NWLC co-president Marcia Greenberger. "Not only does the ruling ignore the reality of pay discrimination, it also cripples the law's intent to address it, and undermines the incentive for employers to prevent and correct it." Echoing Greenberger's remarks, Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, commented that the decision was a "painful and costly step backward for the nation and a deep disappointment to those of us who want to see strong measures in place to give all workers meaningful protections against discrimination."
Wider potential implications. In her dissent, which she read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg likened disparate pay claims as being more analogous to hostile work environment claims, which build up in small increments over time. Accordingly, she noted that eight circuit courts in disparate pay cases have applied holdings that "paychecks perpetuating past discrimination. . .are actionable not simply because they are 'related' to a decision made outside the charge-filing period, but because they discriminate anew each time they issue." She also added that there was no question that the Court's decision had potential implications for any federal antidiscrimination statutes that employ the 180-day statute of limitations period for filing a charge with the EEOC. Aside from Title VII, which includes race, color, religion, sex and national origin, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 also include similar time limits. This means that employees who feel they have been discriminated in their pay on the basis of disability and age also will be affected by the Court's decision.
In its decision, however, the Court left open the question of whether Title VII suits are "amenable to a discovery rule' that would toll the limitations period until employees learn or should have learned of the alleged pay disparity (i.e., when they receive notice of the illegal pay decision, which could occur from receiving a paycheck. Such a rule could potentially lessen the affects of the Supreme Court's decision.
Senators' act. As a result of the Ledbetter, on May 30, 2007, Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Clinton and Mikulski announced that they will introduce legislation during the week of June 4 to ensure that workers are able to enforce their legal right to equal pay. The bill will remove a technical hurdle created by the Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter that will make it far more difficult for women and others to receive equal pay for equal work. Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), George Miller (D-CA) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) announced that they will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
Senator Kennedy said, Ledbetter "creates an unacceptable obstacle to employees' pay discrimination claims. This is not what Congress intended when we passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1991. We are all dedicated to ensuring that workers may seek redress in the courts each and every time they are subjected to unlawful pay discrimination."
"Yesterday's Supreme Court decision reflects a poor understanding of the real problems with long-term pay discrimination," said Senator Harkin. "Most new employees feel less comfortable challenging their salaries, and it is very difficult to determine when pay discrimination begins. Furthermore, a small pay gap tends to widen over time, only becoming noticeable when there is systemic discrimination over a period of years. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to ensure every worker receives the paycheck he or she deserves."
"Unless Congress acts, this Supreme Court ruling will have far-reaching implications for women, and will gravely limit the rights of employees who have suffered pay discrimination based on their race, sex, religion or national origin. All Americans deserve equal pay for equal work and it is our responsibility to get this right," said Senator Clinton. "This week's Supreme Court decision sends a dangerous message about the value of pay equity in this country. It is unacceptable that women and others would be limited in their opportunities to stand up for themselves and for their families. I am proud to team up with my colleagues to right this wrong," said Senator Mikulski.
"Over the last quarter century, we have made strides in the American workplace against pay discrimination, but this recent Supreme Court ruling is another example highlighting that our work is not close to being done," said Representative DeLauro. "When Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act it was with the intent that Title VII would empower people with the tools necessary to address pay discrimination, not create another hurdle. However, it seems that Congress's intent was not clear enough for the Supreme Court and so I am joining with my colleagues to introduce clarifying legislation so there is no further question about our commitment to ending pay discrimination and closing the wage gap," said Representative DeLauro.
"As Justice Ginsburg suggests, the ball has now fallen into Congress' court and we intend to address this ruling," said Representative George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. "The Supreme Court's narrow decision makes it more difficult for workers to stand up for their basic civil rights at work and that is unacceptable."
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/17295963.htm
then googled it and found this.
http://hr.cch.com/news/employment/060107a.asp
EMPLOYMENT LAW — 6/1/07
Senators, various groups respond to Supreme Court's decision in Title VII disparate pay case
The US Supreme Court's holding in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, Inc (89 EPD ¶42,827) has made it difficult for employees to rely on the affects of past discriminatory pay decisions when alleging disparate pay. While business groups like the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) have applauded the Court's decision as being fair, women's rights groups like the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) and National Partnership for Women & Families have criticized the opinion as a step backward for working women. As a result of the Court's decision, Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) announced their intention to introduce legislation to ensure that employees are able to enforce their legal right to equal pay.
In its decision, the High Court held that employees cannot bring Title VII disparate pay claims alleging discrimination occurring outside the 180-day statute of limitations period (or 300 days if the charge also is covered by a state or local anti-discrimination law), even when a paycheck is received during that same limitations period. While new and separately actionable discriminatory acts can start a new limitations period, Title VII disparate pay actions are discrete acts "limited to each particular pay-setting decision." They begin to run when an employer makes its decision on the pay differential. There is no new violation each time a later paycheck reflecting that differential is issued. In so holding, the Court emphasized the distinction between past acts of disparate pay (which occur when employers make adverse pay decisions) and the present effects of those acts (which are found in employees' paychecks). Given that the 180-day statute of limitations period is relative short, it may be difficult for employees to learn whether they are being paid less than similarly situated coworkers. In addition, those employees may be reluctant to sue their employers for disparate pay while still employed.
Employer groups pleased. Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC), remarked that the Supreme Court's ruling "is a victory for employers because it limits how far back in time an employee may go when making a discrimination claim involving pay. If the court ruled the opposite way, employers could have been hauled into court on decades-old claims of discrimination. We commend the court for issuing a fair decision that eliminates a potential wind-fall against employers by employees trying to dredge up stale pay claims." NCLC, is the public policy law firm of the US Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation.
Agreeing with the Conrad's sentiments, NFIB executive director, Karen Harned, commented, "[w]e are thrilled with the Ledbetter decision." She continued: "[a]llowing an employee to wait years before they file a disparate pay claim is simply unfair to the defendant business. As time goes by, employees come and go and evidence of any event becomes increasingly more difficult to produce. This is why statutes of limitations are key components of our justice system. Title VII's specific charge-filing requirement, which operates as a statute of limitations, was adopted by Congress to protect employers from the burden of defending decisions made in the distant past. NFIB is pleased that the Court chose to respect the intent of the statute and decided that there must be a limit for when Title VII claims can be filed." NFIB is the nation's leading small-business advocacy association.
Decision criticized by women's rights groups. The Supreme Court's decision "severely weakens remedies for employees who have faced wage discrimination and represents a flawed interpretation of our nation's civil rights laws," stated the NWLC. "Victims of pay discrimination who did not initially know of pay disparities or were afraid to file a complaint now will have no effective remedy against discrimination, even when it continues," said NWLC co-president Marcia Greenberger. "Not only does the ruling ignore the reality of pay discrimination, it also cripples the law's intent to address it, and undermines the incentive for employers to prevent and correct it." Echoing Greenberger's remarks, Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, commented that the decision was a "painful and costly step backward for the nation and a deep disappointment to those of us who want to see strong measures in place to give all workers meaningful protections against discrimination."
Wider potential implications. In her dissent, which she read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg likened disparate pay claims as being more analogous to hostile work environment claims, which build up in small increments over time. Accordingly, she noted that eight circuit courts in disparate pay cases have applied holdings that "paychecks perpetuating past discrimination. . .are actionable not simply because they are 'related' to a decision made outside the charge-filing period, but because they discriminate anew each time they issue." She also added that there was no question that the Court's decision had potential implications for any federal antidiscrimination statutes that employ the 180-day statute of limitations period for filing a charge with the EEOC. Aside from Title VII, which includes race, color, religion, sex and national origin, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 also include similar time limits. This means that employees who feel they have been discriminated in their pay on the basis of disability and age also will be affected by the Court's decision.
In its decision, however, the Court left open the question of whether Title VII suits are "amenable to a discovery rule' that would toll the limitations period until employees learn or should have learned of the alleged pay disparity (i.e., when they receive notice of the illegal pay decision, which could occur from receiving a paycheck. Such a rule could potentially lessen the affects of the Supreme Court's decision.
Senators' act. As a result of the Ledbetter, on May 30, 2007, Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Clinton and Mikulski announced that they will introduce legislation during the week of June 4 to ensure that workers are able to enforce their legal right to equal pay. The bill will remove a technical hurdle created by the Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter that will make it far more difficult for women and others to receive equal pay for equal work. Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), George Miller (D-CA) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) announced that they will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
Senator Kennedy said, Ledbetter "creates an unacceptable obstacle to employees' pay discrimination claims. This is not what Congress intended when we passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1991. We are all dedicated to ensuring that workers may seek redress in the courts each and every time they are subjected to unlawful pay discrimination."
"Yesterday's Supreme Court decision reflects a poor understanding of the real problems with long-term pay discrimination," said Senator Harkin. "Most new employees feel less comfortable challenging their salaries, and it is very difficult to determine when pay discrimination begins. Furthermore, a small pay gap tends to widen over time, only becoming noticeable when there is systemic discrimination over a period of years. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to ensure every worker receives the paycheck he or she deserves."
"Unless Congress acts, this Supreme Court ruling will have far-reaching implications for women, and will gravely limit the rights of employees who have suffered pay discrimination based on their race, sex, religion or national origin. All Americans deserve equal pay for equal work and it is our responsibility to get this right," said Senator Clinton. "This week's Supreme Court decision sends a dangerous message about the value of pay equity in this country. It is unacceptable that women and others would be limited in their opportunities to stand up for themselves and for their families. I am proud to team up with my colleagues to right this wrong," said Senator Mikulski.
"Over the last quarter century, we have made strides in the American workplace against pay discrimination, but this recent Supreme Court ruling is another example highlighting that our work is not close to being done," said Representative DeLauro. "When Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act it was with the intent that Title VII would empower people with the tools necessary to address pay discrimination, not create another hurdle. However, it seems that Congress's intent was not clear enough for the Supreme Court and so I am joining with my colleagues to introduce clarifying legislation so there is no further question about our commitment to ending pay discrimination and closing the wage gap," said Representative DeLauro.
"As Justice Ginsburg suggests, the ball has now fallen into Congress' court and we intend to address this ruling," said Representative George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. "The Supreme Court's narrow decision makes it more difficult for workers to stand up for their basic civil rights at work and that is unacceptable."