For more articles from me, go to http://balancedmommy.blogspot.com

A SUPREME COURT BLOW TO WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN THE WORKPLACE

On May 29, 2007 (which was incidentally our 3rd wedding anniversary), in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that Lilly Ledbetter, the only female supervisor among 15 men at a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama, did not file her lawsuit against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in the timely manner specified by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By time-barring her claim, the U.S. Supreme Court thus denied any relief for Ledbetter, a 60-year old "fiery mother of two" based on what amounts to a questionable technicality.

Lilly Ledbetter claimed that because of her sex, her employer paid her a smaller salary than it paid all of her male co-workers, including those with less seniority. Ms. Ledbetter’s salary was initially the same as that of her male colleagues, but over time she received smaller raises and a substantial disparity grew. For years, she was paid between 15% and 40% less than her male counterparts on the management team, a fact that she didn't learn until late in her almost 20 year career. A jury had originally awarded Lilly Ledbetter more than $3.5 million because it found "more likely than not" that sex discrimination during her 19-year career led to her being paid substantially less than her male counterparts. The 11th Circuit reversed, based on the new time-barred concept.

The Supreme Court upheld the 11th Circuit ruling (decision below: Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber (11th Cir 08/23/2005)) and in so doing powerfully delivered an insidious blow to the fight for equal pay for equal work by making it much more difficult to enforce equal pay laws.

According to the recent ruling, one cannot make a claim of workplace discrimination if the plaintiff learns about the pay discrepancies too late- claims must be made within 180 days after the pay is set. This doesn't take into account the reality that most people don't know what our co-workers make. In fact, it's illegal to ask in many states. Most employees would have no idea within 180 days that they had received a lower raise than others. The timeline applies, according to the Supreme Court decision, even if the effects of the initial discriminatory act were not immediately apparent to the worker and even if they continue to the present day.

WHAT DOES THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO DO WITH THIS?

Here's how the New York Times described the Bush Administration's angle: "In an opinion by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the majority rejected the view of the federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that each paycheck that reflects the initial discrimination is itself a discriminatory act that resets the clock on the 180-day period, under a rule known as “paycheck accrual.” Under its longstanding interpretation of the statute, the [EEOC] actively supported the plaintiff, Lilly M. Ledbetter, in the lower courts. But after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last June, the Bush administration disavowed the agency’s position and filed a brief on the side of the employer."

GO GET 'EM, RUTH!

The decision moved Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to read a dissent from the bench, a rare practice that she has now employed twice in the past six weeks to criticize the majority for opinions that she said undermine women's rights. Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said Ginsburg's attention-getting dissents are a "clarion call to the American people that this slim majority of the court is headed in the wrong direction."

Speaking for the three other dissenting Justices, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer, said "In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination." She said the court should treat a pay claim as it treated a claim for a “hostile work environment” in a 2002 decision, permitting a charge to be filed “based on the cumulative effect of individual acts.”

In Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion she asked Congress to overturn the ruling and clarify the intent of the law, as it did 15 years ago with a series of Supreme Court rulings on civil rights. “Once again, the ball is in Congress’s court,” she said.

Good idea, Ruth. I wrote to my Congress people right away, courtesy of MomsRising.Org
FIGHTING FOR EQUAL PAY

Last week a bipartisan group of fourteen Senators, led by Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), and including Hillary Clinton (D- NY) introduced a bill to overturn the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision against Lilly Ledbetter.

"The Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter carries grave and far-reaching consequences for women, and severely limits the rights of all employees who have suffered pay discrimination based on their race, sex, religion or national origin. ... All Americans deserve equal pay for equal work, and it is our responsibility to get this right," Hillary said.

To read more about the Act, click here

P.S. GREAT NEWS!! The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on July 31st! Over 17,000 letters to congress helped to make it happen. Now the bill needs to pass out of the Senate. Sign the momsrising.org petition and send it to friends and family to keep the momentum going

Click here to sign the petition:

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/momsrising/signUp....