Maybe he should because he doesn't take "nap time" during oral arguments.
Posted on 05/31/2007 9:51:08 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
Activist judges on the Supreme Court issued a major setback to workers who are discriminated against based on their sex Tuesday, effectively rewriting established law in order to give companies that practice discrimination a break.
In a split 5-4 ruling, the court ruled against a woman who said she found out over time that she had been receiving smaller pay increases than her male counterparts at Goodyear.
Tough, the justices said.
In order for the claim to be valid, they said, the woman would have had to file a suit as soon as she got her first paycheck with the smaller increase. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act requires that claims be filed within 180 days. Previously, however, both the courts and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have established that each paycheck constitutes a violation.
Not so, said the activist judges intent on rewriting the law. Once the person's pay was set, as in with a smaller raise, the 180-day clock begins running.
That's good for employers who consistently discriminate against women and minorities in the workplace.
It's a severe blow to the people who are doing the exact same work as others but getting paid less.
Perhaps Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion of the majority, was thinking he should be paid more than Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who penned the minority's dissenting opinion.
Civil right activists already are calling for Congress to step in with legislation that will correct the activist judges' decision to rewrite established law on fair treatment of employees regardless of their race or sex.
Given the activist nature of this Court, and the propensity of businesses to take advantage of employees however and whenever they can, the legislation can't come soon enough.
I find their choice of wording interesting.
I find their choice of wording ignorant.
Maybe he should because he doesn't take "nap time" during oral arguments.
Yeah, it’s funny they call them “activists.” I would think they are talking about Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter.
Did these editors ever consider that her lesser pay increase may have been a direct reflexion of her PERFORMANCE on the job?
I’m a supervisor and I don’t give everyone ‘equal’ pay raises.
Especially if one employee isn’t doing the job he’s supposed to be doing. We also have a ‘bonus’ system that is dependent on job performance and attendance.
If you miss to many days of work, no bonus. If you don’t do the amount of required work. No bonus.
All things are NOT equal, when it comes to doing the job right.
“I find their choice of wording interesting.”
It’s “Animal Farm” and “1984” - The court lets an existing law stand and that’s “activism”!!??
The bias of that moonbat editorial board shines bright.
Hmm... Is there any possible reason why one person would be paid less than another, besides gender discrimination?
Wow. That should take some great minds a long time to ponder. Maybe there's some other cause of pay differences. Some different motivation.
I'm sure there are very smart people out there toiling away on this difficult problem.
Anyone out there care to take a stab at the question? "What reasons could there be for a difference in pay?" The answer "gender discrimination" has already been taken, so there are no points for duplicating that one.
Nice spin folks ,but the supreme Court ruled on the letter of the law,and thats what it is supposed to do. The rest of your story is just so much crap.
Correction: Not so, said the constructionist judges intent on interpreting the law as written.
I'm not necessarily saying the Supreme Court was wrong here, I'm just looking for a way around this Catch-22 that has been set up.
Is it 180 days from the first paycheck or only the last 180 days of checks can be considered? I haven't read the law so I don't know.
That sounds like the first paycheck with the alleged pay inequity, to me.
Why is Ruth reading her dissents from the bench nowadays? Is she angling for her place in history? Does she want future historians to look back and say she was ahead of her time with her legal reasoning? Do they want to say that she stood up literally for what was right?
I don’t know the way around it. But it seem to be the business of the “deliberative” bodies to be constructing legislation in a sensible and useful fashion. The activists are those who make a effort to fill in the blanks left by posturing legislators. The laws are written in english so they can be understood. If we are told they say something they do not say, how can we know if we are in violation of a law?
Congress could change the law if they want.
The SCOTUS, and I can't believe it wasn't 9-0, said that 180 days means 180 days.
There’s another factor that the WSJ had an article about -
women’s negotiating skills, and willingness to ACCEPT less of an offer.
Hey, if they aren’t going to ask/demand more, and show me that they deserve it, I’m going to pay them what they are satisfied with, just as I would every other employee.
“Is there any possible reason why one person would be paid less than another, besides gender discrimination?”
This is the topic of a Heritage Foundation lecture.
Leftists have this worldview that all decisions, behaviors, cultures, and ethics are “equal” (otherwise, we’d be discriminating), so they should all have equal outcomes, and when the outcomes aren’t equal, it MUST be due to discrimination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.