Posted on 01/09/2009 1:06:38 PM PST by SunkenCiv
At issue in the Ledbetter case was the deadline for filing charges under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court did not deny that Ms. Ledbetter had suffered discrimination, but said she should have filed her claim within 180 days of "the alleged unlawful employment practice" -- the initial decision to pay her less than men performing similar work. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that each paycheck was a violation of the law. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the statute of limitations must be strictly interpreted to protect employers against "stale claims" and "tardy lawsuits." ...The United States Chamber of Commerce opposes the bill, saying it "would lead to an explosion of litigation" against employers. Under the bill, "it is possible that claims could be filed decades after an allegedly discriminatory act occurred," said R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the chamber. In the last 19 months, federal judges have cited the Ledbetter decision in more than 300 cases involving not only Title VII, but also the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Fair Housing Act; a law known as Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in schools and colleges; and even the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects prisoners' rights. Lower-court judges have been influenced by two particular aspects of the Ledbetter decision. The Supreme Court drew a sharp distinction between "discrete acts" of discrimination and the continuing effects of past violations. Employers, it said, do not necessarily violate the law when their recent actions have no discriminatory purpose, but perpetuate the adverse effects of pay decisions made in the past.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Pay equity belongs in stimulus package
Miami Herald | Nov. 28, 2008 | Maria E. Roberts and Laura Morilla
Posted on 11/28/2008 2:08:47 PM PST by IbJensen
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2139743/posts
Democrats Strike Early With Labor Rights Bills
Associated Press / New York Times | January 8, 2009
Posted on 01/08/2009 1:50:59 PM PST by reaganaut1
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2161180/posts
Lilly Ledbetter and the 111th Congress
AWF
Posted on 01/09/2009 3:17:30 AM PST by nateriver
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2161466/posts
Trial lawyers, just like the unions, are expecting their big payday out of the Democrats too.
Next step (in our cliff-dive into socialism) is to guarantee employment for the protected class, no matter what.
Alito wrote in the majority opinion? Who voted in teh majority?
Hopefully Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy decide to take a look at the natural born issue in orly’s, Berg’s or Steve Pidgeon’s case.
Heard Katrina VandenHeuvel cry for employment where you live.
How they gonna make me hire someone?
Most Title VII actions are difficult to prove to begin with. If one an’t stick with the statute of limitations guide lines forgettabouddit-—you’ll have a total circus in federal court. Actually I am working with an attorney who just filed a Title VII-—it ain’t going nowhere-—grounds are flimsy, but you file it anyway to keep the person from throwing a hissy fit—and let the court dismiss it.
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.