President Set to Sign Ledbetter Act
Yesterday, Congress sent President Obama the Ledbetter Act – expected to be the first piece of legislation he signs.
We discussed the Act in detail here. In short, it makes it easier for employees to sue for pay discrimination, even if the discrimination dated back several years.
The Act is in response to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that required employees to file pay discrimination claims within 180 days of the employer’s initial discriminatory pay decision. The Act would extend the statute of limitations another 180 days every time a new discriminatory paycheck is issued.
The President invited Lilly Ledbetter — the Act’s namesake — to accompany him on his train trip to the Inauguration. She said last week that the President “assured me that he would see me in the White House when they sign the bill.”
Advocates of the Act argued for overturning the Supreme Court’s decision because it rewarded employers who managed to keep pay discrimination secret for six months. Opponents argue that the Act renders the statute of limitations meaningless and will lead to an explosion of lawsuits and trial lawyer fees.
Stay tuned for more.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
In the particular case that prompted this bill, the plaintiff didn’t even bring her complaint until after the supervisor whom the law suit addressed had died. It is also worth mentioning that the plaintiff didn’t even allege that any discrimination had taken place in the previous decade. Her attorneys instead argued that a pay discrepancy in the 1980′s, because it was not rectified, resulted in continued discrimination each time she received a paycheck. Hence, Lilly Ledbetter thought it appropriate to file EEOC charges in July 1998 and then a formal lawsuit in November, the month of her retirement.
The 11th Circuit Court that overturned her favorable ruling reached the conclusion that the plaintiff should have filed her lawsuit within 180 days of becoming aware of the pay discrepancy and since she didn’t, the statute of limitations had passed. They, I think fairly, concluded that once that supervisor had left the company, it was reasonable to conclude that the pay discrepancy was NOT itentional. In my opinion there are two issues at stake here: 1. At what point is a delay in filing so damaging to the preservation of evidence that it becomes impossible to defend oneself against a discrimination claim? and 2. Is the retroactive nature of this bill contrary to the spirit of the Ex Post Facto Clause of our Constitution? (I know that it doesn’t apply to civil proceedings, hence the phrase “spirit of”.) Something to think about…
January 30th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Thanks for the deep thoughts, Jason. I just posted a response to your comments regarding the President’s signing of the Act (today’s post).