President Obama Signs Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, But Challenges Remain

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.

Comments

[socmom4]

Thanks!

[Ntyblgr67]

Here's a good article I found with some background on Crawford for those interested:


Crawford did not initiate the investigation, nor had she filed any formal charges. The internal inquiry was conducted by a female lawyer in the legal department. Crawford told the lawyer she was afraid she might lose her job if she told the truth about the manager's behavior.

Crawford eventually answered the questions. She was one of three women who told the lawyer that the director of employee relations had made repeated inappropriate gestures and comments of a sexual nature in the workplace.

After the investigation, the director of employee relations received a verbal reprimand, but no other disciplinary action was taken. Senior management then began an investigation of Crawford and her department. She and the two other women were fired.

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 demonstrated active "opposition" to the alleged conduct by having already filed a formal discrimination charge with the company or the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

[socmom4]

Exactly. Not only did they help fight for all working women in America but they did it while standing up to one of the strongest forces in the world.

I think Ledbetter and Crawford's work is the needed stepping stone to more change that Alexander references.

[Ntyblgr67]

Interesting story socmom.


I had never heard of Vicky Crawford before that so thanks for the information. It's incredible to think of the things they overcame. I can't even imagine standing up to the U.S. Government and Supreme Court!!

[socmom4]

"In Crawford's case, she and her supporters took the adverse appeals court decision to the Supreme Court.

"As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal court of appeals decision that Vicky Crawford couldn't sue for retaliation and held that an employee who participates in internal sexual harassment or other discrimination investigations receives the same protections from unlawful retaliation as an employee who participates in an investigation by a state or federal equal employment opportunity agency," Cummins says.

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 differential stems from sexist, racist or other discriminatory practices, Ledbetter paved the way for you to sue within 180 days of your next paycheck.

If your employer recently fired you in what appeared to be retaliation after you participated in an internal investigation, Crawford's Supreme Court ruling gives you an avenue for potential recourse.

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)

[socmom4]

" Although in the right, Ledbetter didn't stand a chance because she found out the pay inequity too late and thus didn't sue in time.

Crawford worked 30 years for the Metro School District of Nashville County. When questioned about rumors that the employee-relations director sexually harassed employees, Crawford told what she knew. Although she hadn't made the complaint and simply told the investigator about incidents in which the male employee-relations director grabbed his crotch and pulled her head toward his crotch, her company fired her, after charging her with embezzlement.

Crawford sued, claiming Metro fired her in retaliation for her statements during the investigation. A federal court of appeals decided Crawford couldn't sue because her actions related to an internal investigation.

"Most individuals would give up after losing in the Supreme Court or federal court appeals," says human resources consultant and former employment attorney Judith Cummings. "But these employees didn't. Further, because others agreed that what happened to these employees didn't comply with the spirit of our country's equal employment opportunity laws, they changed the legal landscape for everyone."

Ledbetter triggered the introduction and eventual passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that President Obama signed on Jan. 29 overturning the Supreme Court decision and establishing that employees "restarted" their time for suing for pay inequity each time they received a paycheck. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is retroactive back to the day before the Supreme Court held against Ledbetter in May 2007."

[socmom4]

Don't forget Vicky Crawford. Ledbetter did so much for the cause but Crawford has been just as strong of a champion. (see below)

"Last month, Lilly Ledbetter and Vicky Crawford's personal employment struggles opened new doors for employees facing similar challenges. Neither employee found the law on her side, but both decided they would do whatever it took to right a wrong. What does their success promise you?

Ledbetter, an area manager for the Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Gadsden, Ala., worked 19 years for her company. When close to retirement, she discovered her pay was less than male area managers with equal or less seniority.

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 discrimination claim within 180 days of a company's initial decision to pay the employee less than it pays a co-worker doing the same job."

[actionblogtom]

That's an interesting piece.

It's hard to admit/realize that the main independent body in our government still has so much controversy and partisanship on issues that you would think are so clear cut.

Let's hope that change will come soon.

[Ntyblgr67]

I came across this article in the Wall Street Journal that might be of interest to you. Copied below is some of the text:

Do job discrimination plaintiffs get a raw deal in federal court?

A WSJ piece today examines that question, citing recent studies that show discrimination plaintiffs lose at a higher rate in federal court than other plaintiffs and more often get tossed out of court on summary judgments.

The statistics provide sobering news for plaintiffs’ lawyers and employee advocates, who have hoped that changes made by the Obama administration might usher in a more favorable climate for discrimination claims. The first piece of legislation signed by Obama was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay, Act, which makes it easier for to sue over pay discrimination.

[Ntyblgr67]

But the fact that more workers have standing to sue doesn’t mean they will be warmly received in court, if previous patterns hold steady. From 1979 through 2006, federal plaintiffs won 15% of job-discrimination cases. By comparison, plaintiffs in other cases not involving alleged job discrimination enjoyed a 51% win rate, according to this study due to be published later this month by the Harvard Law & Policy Review, the official journal of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

The bad track record for discrimination cases has been ascribed to everything from a dearth of minorities on the bench to inherent difficulties in proving job discrimination, which is rarely overt.

Defense lawyers say that companies are quick to settle discrimination suits that appear credible. Cases that aren’t settled, they claim, often are frivolous and should be dismissed. Says Lawrence Lorber, a partner at Proskauer Rose: “If it’s a real case, they settle. Employers aren’t dumb.”

Whatever is behind the disparity, the odds against winning discrimination cases have some employee lawyers reluctant even to try, WSJ reports. “We will no longer take individual employment­-discrimin­ation cases, because there’s such a high likelihood of losing,” New York plaintiffs’ attorney Joe Whatley Jr. says.

[Ntyblgr67]

Thank you Carey for your post.


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?

[Ntyblgr67]

Also, did you know that a woman could potentially lose an average of 400,000 dollars in her career because of unequal pay.

Facts prove that women are at a severe disadvantage in all aspects of the workplace. For the Supreme Court to deny this by originally ruling against Lily is just absurd.

We need to fix the salary gap as well as the many problems with employee hiring an company discrimination.

[Ntyblgr67]

Here's a good breakdown of the legislative details. This comes from the Californian newspaper:

"Title I of the Lilly Ledbetter Act reverses the U.S. Supreme Court decision from 2007 that limited the statute of limitations for federal claims of discrimination and unequal pay to when the pay decision was made. This new law, which amends Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the Civil Rights Act, specifically states:

"An unlawful practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation, when a discrimina­tory-compe­nsation decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to a discrimina­tory-compe­nsation decision or other practice, or when a person is affected by application of a discrimina­tory-compe­nsation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice."

[STmorton23]

Lily's unwaivering dedication to this issue has led to an important turning point for equal opportunity for women. I can only hope that young women everywhere see Lily as a role model who stood up for what she knew was right and never stopped working towards fairness.

This turning point has inevitably laid the groundwork for future cases of civil rights and workplace abuses.

[actionblogtom]

Any idea who future leaders on this issue will be?

[actionblogtom]

Ledbetter has overcome decades of injustice to stand up for equal opportunity everywhere, yet change is still needed. As Alexander said in the post: "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."

[STmorton23]

I agree. Ledbetter is definitely a role model for all of us.

[actionblogtom]

Yes, let's hope there are other leaders that will continue to work for the cause of equal opportunity and civil rights for everyone. Lily Ledbetter has set the stage, now it is our turn to carry the torch.

This Administration has shown it is willing to advocate and prioritize rights issues.