Supreme Court limits discrimination claim.
“Workers can’t sue under a federal job-bias law to claim they are underpaid because of gender or race discrimination that occurred years earlier, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled. The justices, voting 5-4, rejected a $360,000 award to Lilly Ledbetter, an Alabama Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. worker who said that almost two decades of discrimination meant her salary was 15 to 40 percent lower than what her male counterparts earned.”
UPDATE: Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority:
“Ledbetter should have filed an EEOC charge within 180 days after each allegedly discriminatory pay decision was made and communicated to her.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined Alito’s opinion. Lower courts were divided on the issue.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court’s only woman, took the unusual step of reading a summary of her dissent from the bench as she sat next to Alito. She said the majority “does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.”
UPDATE II: More from Scott Lemieux.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
55 Responses to “Supreme Court limits discrimination claim.”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Will Edwards discriminate against homosexuals?
http://redstate.com/ stories/ the_parties/ democrats/ john_edwards_not_comfortable_with_gays
May 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pmMaybe now the day-to-day workers who listen to rush and similar will begin to realize that the big corporations and very rich republicans who are making the really big money are not really their friends. The court is finally again in the hands of those with privelege and does not have the interests of the common man in mind. A republican court.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:10 pmAh, the rollback of women’s rights is moving along swimmingly.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pmSo Alito’s argument basically came down to a statute of limitations lapse? Sheeesh.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pmI don’t get the issue. The ruling seems to make sense, that there should be a statute. What am I missing?
May 29th, 2007 at 3:18 pmCertainly I’m pleading ignorance, here. Obviously, women should be paid the same as men for the same jobs. But there should be a time limit in which to file a grievance, no? A time limit from when the victim finds out she’s a victim, anyway.
Oh, Captain, you are such a Bush-Man! So strong of muscle and so weak of mind!
May 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pmComment by CaptainMantastic
Get off it, and try to stay on topic, please.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pmExcellent ruling.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:22 pm“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court’s only woman, took the unusual step of reading a summary of her dissent from the bench as she sat next to Alito. She said the majority “does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.â€
Nice slam, Justice Ginsburg.
Women’s rights are circling the drain.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:23 pmWilco, if the woman is the sole provider for her children, and the job she has is the best she can do, it is very difficult to fight this type of job discrimination when you fear you will lose your job. I think it is heartless for Alito et al. to rule against this woman.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:24 pmWill Edwards discriminate against homosexuals?
http://redstate.com/ stories/ the_parties/ democrats/ john_edwards_not_comfortable_with_gays
Comment by CaptainMantastic — May 29, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Just you.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:24 pmIn a culture where the question “So what are you making” may actually be an HR violation, this ruling doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Besides, you need a baseline to be sure you’re being discriminated against: one pay decision doesn’t do it.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pmExcellent ruling.
Comment by Patrick1 — May 29, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
If you happen to be a Neo-Nazi like yourself…
May 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pmIt seems Ms Ledbetter was penalized for trying to keep a job — who knows what her personal situation was — and then for not knowing how the system works.
Another win for Corporate America!
BTW you little people, don’t ever think the SCOTUS will protect you….
May 29th, 2007 at 3:28 pmUh, in the real world, it’s “file an EEOC grievance, lose your job.”
If the company has a policy that you don’t discuss your salary with your fellow workers, you may suspect but not know.
And if they do it by shorting you 5% every year so you don’t notice… you really going to dump your entire career and pension for 5%? Because that’s all it is — when it starts. It’s gotten to the 100% 20 years later.
You shut up and take it. BTW, it can have a VERY chilling effect on your future employment opportunities if it is discovered that you filed a suit or a grievance against a former employer. The merits are unimportant — you’re a troublemaker.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:29 pmI don’t get the issue. The ruling seems to make sense, that there should be a statute. What am I missing?
Certainly I’m pleading ignorance, here. Obviously, women should be paid the same as men for the same jobs. But there should be a time limit in which to file a grievance, no? A time limit from when the victim finds out she’s a victim, anyway.
Comment by Wilco
I agree, we all know that women should be paid the same for the same job, but to give no statute of limitations is wrong. The court got this one right.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:32 pmWilco.
In addition to the threat to her job that other people raised above, I’ll add: the statute of limitations should begin on the day she realized she was being discriminated against, not the date someone else got a higher paycheck.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:33 pm“Goodyear, while acknowledging that Ledbetter was paid less than men holding similar jobs, attributed the disparity to her poor performance over the years. The company put in place a merit-based compensation program in 1982.”
I never saw a rebuttle on Ledbetter’s behalf to this claim. Did she provide any evidence to the contrary? Perhaps she was just an “okay” worker that did enough to not lose her job.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:37 pmWilco, if the woman is the sole provider for her children, and the job she has is the best she can do, it is very difficult to fight this type of job discrimination when you fear you will lose your job. I think it is heartless for Alito et al. to rule against this woman.
Comment by mikeandjeffsmom — May 29, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
It can’t be that difficult to fight since she was doing just that. And if she wants to sell herself out like that, then it should be on her. A woman should not have however long she pleases to file charges simply because it’s difficult and she fears losing her job. She should stand up for what she feels is right. If there aren’t any already (and I suspect there are), there should be laws protecting people from being fired for filing such charges.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pmSuperficially at least, this ruling seems ok.
They could use this ruling for reparations too. Guam is in trouble.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pmYes, you are missing it. All of you. The majority opinion is stating that there was nothing in the last 2 pay raises that indicates anything different from the men’s pay raises. Thusly no difference could be found, and there was no discrimination present.
The statute of limitations says she only has 180 days to file, so the real question is when did she become aware of the difference in pay between herself and her male counterparts. From reading the opinion, you can see that for some time she had suspected such having occurred and therefore tried to set her case on her last two pay raises in order to meet the statute of limitations.
I didn’t see the minority opinion, but my guess is the dissent came in the fact that the majority opinion stated that it had to be made for each year and not for when she discovered the discrimination existed. The majority opinion was written in such a way to disallow looking at previous years rather than just looking at timeliness based on when you became aware of the discriminatory activity.
In other words she was saying alito can’t limit the # of years looked at based on timeliness of a complaint. In his opinion, he encompassed more than was needed in an attempt to prevent people looking at long time discriminatory practices.
The decision was correct, but Alito’s attempts to minimize damages in subsequent cases was wrong. He cannot limit the number of years reviewed for discriminatory practices or declare time limits based on anything other than knowledge of when it occurred.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:45 pmWilco,
This is from the Update II, Scott Lemieux:
The effect of the case is to insulate employers from wage discrimination claims as long as they can hid the evidence from the employee being discriminated against for 180 days, a result contrary to the purpose of the statute that is in no way compelled by its language.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pmThe effect of the case is to insulate employers from wage discrimination claims as long as they can hid the evidence from the employee being discriminated against for 180 days, a result contrary to the purpose of the statute that is in no way compelled by its language.
Comment by Zooey
It wasn’t this case that made the timeline. It was the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Do you prefer a court that disregards the law?
May 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pmI have to admit one of the first things I thought when I read the post was: Why did she wait so long to say anything about it?
Thats like eating 90 percent of a burger, and then returning it saying you didn’t like it.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pmIt wasn’t this case that made the timeline. It was the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Do you prefer a court that disregards the law?
Comment by timmy
Blow it out your ass, timmy. I prefer a court that protects the rights and people of this country.
Jim Crow used to be THE LAW.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:15 pmSo Alito’s argument basically came down to a statute of limitations lapse? Sheeesh.
Are you suggesting the courts ignore the law?
May 29th, 2007 at 4:15 pmThe effect of the ruling is to strike a blow against trial lawyers. Well done USSC.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pmZooey, if that’s the effect, then it’s wrong. Again, I believe the statute should go into effect from the date of the victim’s realization (which is hard to pinpoint with any degree of proof). Not from when the offense occurred.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pmZooey, if that’s the effect, then it’s wrong. Again, I believe the statute should go into effect from the date of the victim’s realization (which is hard to pinpoint with any degree of proof). Not from when the offense occurred.
Statutes of limitations have never worked in that fashion. The SOL on debts, for example, starts when the debtor defaults, not when the creditor realizes the debtor defaults.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:22 pmBlow it out your ass, timmy. I prefer a court that protects the rights and people of this country.
Jim Crow used to be THE LAW.
Comment by Zooey
A courts job is not to change laws to fit the case. She did not file within the 180 days that is required by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, case closed. What about employer rights? I know everbody hates the big corporations, but what about a small business that could have people claiming discrimination in pay from 20 years ago that don’t even work there anymore. Is it fair to them to hire lawyers and take time away from their business?
May 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pmm12, I do realize that, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be the case. It’s a potential fraud perpetrated against someone in secret, potentially. I’m torn because there also must be protections for the companies against unreasonable charges. It’s a broken system and that’s unfortunate.
But in terms of debtors defaulting, the lendor, etc certainly has a reasonable expectation to know immediately upon a person defaulting.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:34 pmToday, lenders keep track using computers that notify them when a debt is overdue. Not a fair analogy, in my opinion. I don’t know of a way for a debtor to fool a lender into thinking the payments keep on arriving each month.
OK. I think I may be seeing this all wrong. Is the point of the case that her wages are continuously effected by the discriminatory pay, and therefore should not be subject to statute since it’s an ongoing offense?
May 29th, 2007 at 4:40 pmInteresting case.
And the war on equality continues.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pmA courts job is not to change laws to fit the case. She did not file within the 180 days that is required by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, case closed. What about employer rights? I know everbody hates the big corporations, but what about a small business that could have people claiming discrimination in pay from 20 years ago that don’t even work there anymore. Is it fair to them to hire lawyers and take time away from their business?
Comment by timmy
It’s not the court’s job to enable employers to play “hide the canoli” and hope to out maneuver the employee they’re cheating. It’s the court’s job to protect the people from this kind of crap, but they failed.
Statutes of limitations are fine, but they must be fair — not hidden.
I guess in your world it’s supremely fair for employees to be cheated by employers, and then complain when the employer has to fight the case.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:47 pmIt’s not the court’s job to enable employers to play “hide the canoli†and hope to out maneuver the employee they’re cheating.
They didn’t. The Democrats in Congress did.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:01 pmIt’s not the court’s job to enable employers to play “hide the canoli†and hope to out maneuver the employee they’re cheating. It’s the court’s job to protect the people from this kind of crap, but they failed.
Statutes of limitations are fine, but they must be fair — not hidden.
I guess in your world it’s supremely fair for employees to be cheated by employers, and then complain when the employer has to fight the case.
Comment by Zooey
She suspected the discrimination years ago and did nothing. It is her responsibility to look out for herself here. She could have looked into the law. She could have hired a lawyer then. She did neither. People can’t come back 20 years later and say they were discriminated against. Businesses need to be protected just as much as individuals, if not more since they are the the livelihood of other employees.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pm“Get off it, and try to stay on topic, please.
Comment by Zooey — May 29, 2007″
zooey, did you answer my question yet?
May 29th, 2007 at 5:22 pm“Women’s rights are circling the drain.
Comment by Zooey — May 29, 2007″
They are? Explain how?
May 29th, 2007 at 5:23 pm“BTW you little people, don’t ever think the SCOTUS will protect you….
Comment by Zooey — May 29, 2007 ”
Why not zooey?
May 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pm“I prefer a court that protects the rights and people of this country.
Jim Crow used to be THE LAW.
Comment by Zooey — May 29, 2007″
They do!
May 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pmLedbetter should have filed an EEOC charge within 180 days after each allegedly discriminatory pay decision was made and communicated to her.
Uh, comparing salaries is a good way to get fired. If Alito hadn’t come up through the wingnut welfare system, he might know what people who work for a living know.
As it is, he just legislated from the bench (i.e., that the continuing practice wasn’t illegal), so so much for that talking-point.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:51 pm.
Ah, hell no - them wimmen outa jest leave the menfolk to a-running the world and git on back to the kitchen with the young-uns.
(However, more women than men are currently graduating from college, so remember fellas, payback is hell.)
May 29th, 2007 at 5:53 pmI’m not sure that women should face an uphill battle just to be compensated fairly. They seemingly do twice the work that men do these days. When does being compensated fairly have to be a luxury for them?
The plaintiff was wrong to have waited all those years to contest her treatment, but there should have been some kind of back pay award and/or some directive that her pay would be adjusted to that of an equally experienced, regarded, tenured male employee of that company. I didn’t attend law school, so correct me if I’m wrong.
As women employees are the new majority in the U.S. Workforce, the system isn’t adjusting itself. It seems the Alito pack will always try to find some kind of technobabble to deny people with differences reasonable justice.
Get ready, the Alito and Roberts era is in full-throttle until I am at least in my forties.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pmActually, your company can’t stop you from telling people what you make - that’s freedom of speech. I had an awful manager who told me I couldn’t do that - I told him, ‘I can post it in my cubicle, YOU have to have my permission to tell my co-workers.’
May 29th, 2007 at 5:57 pmAs women employees are the new majority in the U.S. Workforce, the system isn’t adjusting itself. It seems the Alito pack will always try to find some kind of technobabble to deny people with differences reasonable justice.
Maybe you should blame the bad law written by Congress instead of the judges who follow it. Just a suggestion.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:14 pmUh, comparing salaries is a good way to get fired. If Alito hadn’t come up through the wingnut welfare system, he might know what people who work for a living know.
Sam Alito is an honorable man; a son of 2 immigrant teachers who grew up , lived the American Dream, and rose to power and status through his own intelligence and hard work.
What exactly does he have to do with the welfare system?
May 29th, 2007 at 6:18 pmScalito is an evil little pustule who has made his way in the world by providing intellectual cover for his racist, bigoted, greedy corporate patrons. Like Clarence Thomas, Scalito is a case of affirmative action for wingnuts.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:33 pmI know I’m off topic (but, TP’s not going to raise the subject) and I’ll give it up, but I tried 3-4 times to find anyone who cares at all about progressive homophobia:
http://redstate.com/ stories/ the_parties/ democrats/ john_edwards_not_comfortable_with_gays
It’s just going to seem a little hollow, the next time TP finds the need to post something that characterizes conservatives as homophobic. The apathy here over Edwards seems a little hypicritical.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:41 pmComment by m12
Well, suggestion taken, but I’ve simply got concerns that Alito is too far out of touch, even for my right-wing tastes.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:48 pmIt’s just going to seem a little hollow, the next time TP finds the need to post something that characterizes conservatives as homophobic. The apathy here over Edwards seems a little hypicritical.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Didn’t you already put that on the ThinkFast thread? That’s sufficient, don’t you think? There are over 150 comments there. You didn’t get enough of a response?
May 29th, 2007 at 6:55 pmIt’s just going to seem a little hollow, the next time TP finds the need to post something that characterizes conservatives as homophobic. The apathy here over Edwards seems a little hypicritical.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — May 29, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Oh, puhlease! A *redstate* smear is bound to represent the exact opposite. You wingnuts are a bunch of homophobic t*rds - you lying sack of sh*t.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pmMaybe you should blame the bad law written by Congress instead of the judges who follow it. Just a suggestion. Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
Considering how many bad laws you wingnuts have passed in recent years - there’s plenty of room for THAT criticism as well - dum bass NeoNaziCon!
May 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pmConsidering how many bad laws you wingnuts have passed in recent years - there’s plenty of room for THAT criticism as well - dum bass NeoNaziCon!
Oh, is that why Robert Byrd filibustered this Act here? Because it was unfair to women who might endure wage discrimination?
That explains a lot of things.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:24 pmCurious. MA aka valiant venus, the alleged attorney, skipped this thread. Hmmmm….. :D
May 29th, 2007 at 11:27 pmOk, so the Supreme Court says you’ve got 180 days from your last pay raise to file a discrimination complaint, and you’ve got to start with the first one up the ladder. That may mean your first raise above minimum wage.
Ok. I’ll take those cases. And, if the woman is fired, I’m going after the employer big-time on the retaliation claim. That’s where punitive damages come in. Plus back pay, front pay, emotional distress…I’ll take the case on contingent. The employer is going to have to pay his lawyer hourly.
Employers, you want to give different pay based on gender? Go ahead, make my day!
May 30th, 2007 at 12:06 am