Sounds like we're back to that "keep sweet" stuff, doesn't it?
I almost smashed my radio when Diane Rehm had on some PR woman with a genteel British accent who made phony charges conjuring up the prospects of courts being clogged with cases that happened two decades ago. I was dying to find out how her pay compared with that of the workers they were talking about. One caller asked if under the 180 day restriction if it wasn't possible for a crooked employer to just cover up the pay inequity for that period and get out of following the law. The corporate mouthpiece started tergiversating all over the place to try to get out of it. I don't have a transcript but seem to recall her mentioning legal recourse.
I hate PR hacks hired to promote inequality for the group they belong to. I want to force feed them broken glass. And that's when I calm down.
the ledbetter case was a sex discrimination case, but there's really no logical reason why the same reasoning wouldn't close the door on a lot of race, religion, national origin, disability and age discrimination cases as well.
i wonder if strategically it would be better to emphasize how the decision could apply to religious discrimination, and ask republicans why they voted to prevent evangelicals from suing when they are paid half as much as atheists solely because of their belief in jesus.
"I don't have a transcript but seem to recall her mentioning legal recourse."
That was what the bill was about...legal recourse for the abuse.
Do they not get that the legal recourse for employee discrimination IS lawsuits?
Just to be clear, Ledbetter did not argue that she could not file a lawsuit because she did not know of the discrimination. In many kinds of litigation, there is a so called "discovery rule" that expands your time to sue if you could have discovered through ordinary diligence that you in fact had been harmed. In footnote 10 of the Ledbetter decision, Alito points out that the court has never said one way or another whether the discovery rule applied in Title VII cases and that the issue was not raised by Ledbetter in her case.
"10 We have previously declined to address whether Title VII suits are amenable to a discovery rule. National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, 536 U. S. 101 , n. 7 (2002). Because Ledbetter does not argue that such a rule would change the outcome in her case, we have no occasion to address this issue."
Yeah...accountability and penalty, that's not for business, only for welfare mothers, immigrants, and public schools...
I recall that odd statement that Bush made about doctors sharing their love of women through the United States.
He's all for equity, if people decide to give equity and it doesn't cause corporations to be required to do anything different.
Gee, inequity is stealing from our country everyday. It's like welfare for corporations, because the money that doesn't fairly go to women the government has to make up with retirement and other supports. It's a race to the bottom and seeds unrest. It's stealing is what it is.
Actually I think McCain's preferred method for achieve pay equity for women is to slash wages for men.
Just to be clear, Ledbetter did not argue that she could not file a lawsuit because she did not know of the discrimination.
there was no reason for her to raise the "discovery rule" because prior to the ledbetter case, unequal pay was an ongoing violation.
That is not correct. The circuits were split on the question of how to apply the limitations period in disparate treatment pay cases.
She argued that each paycheck was a discriminatory act, but did not identify the discriminatory intent for the acts except in some unfair evaluations made 20 years earlier that put her on the lower pay curve. She did not argue that her last and most recent paychecks were lower because she a woman. She argued that her most recent paychecks were lower because she had been unlawfully discriminated against as a woman 20 years earlier.
I am not saying it is a great decision, but it doesn't say what everyone says it does. They probably would have found a way to get the decision they wanted anyway, but at least the door is still open to argue the discovery rule in these kinds of cases, which is the equitable point that most people have identified as the real problem with the decision.
Don't forget, with your time, money and vote, that there are other races going on and Senate races are very important as the slate article points out in "How dumb are we?" as the headline on the front page asks.
http://www.slate.com/id/2189983/
I hope we aren't so dumb to think that pushing for a fix is not over. It's possible that this was a foregone vote in any case, where they knew the outcome beforehand, but did the vote because they knew nothing would get done but they could say they tried in in the election. Yes, I'm talking to you, Senate Democrats. Reintroduce and pursue or be hypocrites for corporations.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
