Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act renews a worker’s right to sue for wage discrimination within six months of every unfair paycheck, not just the first. The legislation was spurred by the case of Lily Ledbetter, a lifelong employee of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, who became aware that the company had, for decades, consistently paid her less than her equivalent male colleagues. A jury found her employer guilty of pay discrimination, but the conservative wing of the Supreme Court overturned the case, 5-4, because she hadn’t sued within 180 days of the date of the first discriminatory paycheck. (This would have been impossible, of course, because Ledbetter only became aware of the injustice after it had been happening for decades.) The Act overturns the Court’s decision.
Cry Wolf Quotes
Removing the caps on damages sought by plaintiffs would likely prompt employers to protect themselves by purchasing expanded legal liability insurance. That added burden of insurance would increase the cost of doing business in the United States and may result in a reduction of employees’ wages and benefits and/or the hiring of fewer workers.
By contrast, the dissent’s argument that a discrimination plaintiff can sue based on each paycheck she receives, if her current paycheck was somehow affected by discrimination in the distant past, would allow plaintiffs to sue based on discrimination that occurred decades before, even if the employer is innocent, the alleged discriminators have all died, and the employer no longer has access to any evidence that could vindicate it…That is fundamentally unfair, and at odds with the whole purpose of having a statute of limitations.
Barack Obama supports [new fair pay laws], notwithstanding that they would raise workforce costs in a recession….Whether or not the U.S. economy creates more income in the coming years, Congress is clearly determined to redistribute it.
[Obama’s signing of the Ledbetter act is] a decision that could prove harmful to small business….Without limits, small businesses would be forced into the position of trying to defend an employment decision that occurred in the distant past…Because discrimination cases tend to rely on circumstantial evidence ('he said, she said' testimony), it would serve both parties best to review what occurred immediately after the event, not years later.
