President Barack Obama recently signed the the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law, reversing an absurd and disastrous Supreme Court decision that allowed companies to discriminate against workers based on their gender. The Act's namesake, 70-year-old Lilly Ledbetter, discovered shortly before retiring that her employer, Goodyear, had for decades systemically paid her less than her male colleagues. The Supreme Court ruled that because Lilly hadn't immediately discovered the pay discrepancy, she had no right to challenge the discrimination. With the new law, Congress stood up and clearly explained to the Court that each discriminatory paycheck is a violation of the law, regardless of when the discrimination began.
Though the Act is undeniably a tremendous victory for women and workers, it's far too soon to rejoice.
The Supreme Court is still firmly grounded in a right-wing ideology that doesn't want people defending their rights in court. This isn't the first time Congress has had to tell the Court to stop harming Americans. Back in September, Congress passed legislation to repudiate a series of Court rulings that changed the definition of a disability. The Court essentially declared, among other things, that people taking medication weren't sick enough to be declared disabled and employers were free to discriminate against them.
Clearly, Lilly Ledbetter's case resonated broadly with so many Americans because it was blatantly unfair. Most Supreme Court rulings - damaging and beneficial alike - deal with abstract legal concepts whose impact can be murky. Here, the Court's response to Lilly Ledbetter was so clearly wrong and patently offensive that it became part of the Presidential election. Though we now have a new President and new Congress, the courts are insulated from elections and still aren't empathetic to the needs of ordinary Americans.
But can't Congress just override the Court next time they get it wrong? Not quite. Here, the Court was inferring Congress' intent. In this case, Congress could stand up and say 'Wait a minute, you got it wrong!' In most cases though, the Court is interpreting the Constitution itself. Take the case of Patricia Garrett, a state employee who, like Lilly Ledbetter, was paid less because of discrimination. The Supreme Court told her she couldn't defend herself in court because the rights she was asserting, granted by Congress, violated the Constitution. There's no easy fix for those cases, which cause damage that only the Supreme Court can correct.
The President and Congress should be commended for standing up for workers and women, but the Lilly Ledbetter Act should serve as a stark reminder that at least for the moment, change hasn't come to the Supreme Court.
Loading comments… 
Crawford did not initiate the investigat
Crawford eventually answered the questions. She was one of three women who told the lawyer that the director of employee relations had made repeated inappropri
After the investigat
Crawford sued, claiming protection under Title VII. But a federal judge and a panel of the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against her. They said Title VII protects only those employees who had demonstrat
I think Ledbetter and Crawford's work is the needed stepping stone to more change that Alexander references
I had never heard of Vicky Crawford before that so thanks for the informatio
"As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal court of appeals decision that Vicky Crawford couldn't sue for retaliatio
What do Ledbetter and Crawford's struggles and victories mean to you? Perhaps a lot. If you believe you're unfairly paid compared with co-workers and have evidence that the pay differenti
If your employer recently fired you in what appeared to be retaliatio
Equally as important, if you believe you have "right" on your side and the current laws don't fit the situation, realize these two women chose to fight for their rights -- and won."
(Lynne Curry, Anchorage Daily News)
Crawford worked 30 years for the Metro School District of Nashville County. When questioned about rumors that the employee-r
Crawford sued, claiming Metro fired her in retaliatio
"Most individual
Ledbetter triggered the introducti
"Last month, Lilly Ledbetter and Vicky Crawford's personal employment struggles opened new doors for employees facing similar challenges
Ledbetter, an area manager for the Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Gadsden, Ala., worked 19 years for her company. When close to retirement
Armed with the facts, that the male area managers earned $4,286 to $5,236 a month in contrast with her $3,727, she sued for equal pay, taking her case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Goodyear, holding that a employee must file a discrimina
It's hard to admit/real
Let's hope that change will come soon.
Do job discrimina
A WSJ piece today examines that question, citing recent studies that show discrimina
The statistics provide sobering news for plaintiffs
The bad track record for discrimina
Defense lawyers say that companies are quick to settle discrimina
Whatever is behind the disparity, the odds against winning discrimina
What do you think we can do if the Supreme Court is always going to be the way it is? Can any government policy fix the current problems?
Facts prove that women are at a severe disadvanta
We need to fix the salary gap as well as the many problems with employee hiring an company discrimina
"Title I of the Lilly Ledbetter Act reverses the U.S. Supreme Court decision from 2007 that limited the statute of limitation
"An unlawful practice occurs, with respect to discrimina
This turning point has inevitably laid the groundwork for future cases of civil rights and workplace abuses.
This Administra