|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: Equal Pay Bill |
 |
|
Our journey begins with the Ledbetter decision.
| Quote: |
| Ledbetter alleged that several supervisors had in the past given her poor evaluations because of her sex; that as a result, her pay had not increased as much as it would have if she had been evaluated fairly;that those past pay decisions affected the amount of her pay through-out her employment; and that by the end of her employment, she wasearning significantly less than her male colleagues. Goodyear main-tained that the evaluations had been nondiscriminatory, but the juryfound for Ledbetter, awarding backpay and damages. On appeal, Goodyear contended that the pay discrimination claim was time barred with regard to all pay decisions made before September 26,1997�180 days before Ledbetter filed her EEOC questionnaire�and that no discriminatory act relating to her pay occurred after that date. |
SCOTUS decided that clock for the statute of limitations under the EEOC begins ticking the minute the first discriminatory check is given. That means that Ledbetter only had 180 days after receiving her first unfair check to go to court. Of course, there's a problem: how long is it reasonable for Ledbetter to take to find out her pay is discriminatory? She may not know for years.
Richard Ford weighs in
| Quote: |
And, contra McCain, far from encouraging frivolous litigation, the Equal Pay Act might even discourage it. As Emily points out, in many cases it take a while for the employee to find out that she�s being paid less than other people doing the same work (employees rarely discuss their salaries with each other and of course management has every incentive not to publicize pay disparities)�but Ledbetter says that�s tough�if you don�t find out after until after the quite short filing period ends (either 180 or 300 days), your action is time barred. This actually encourages anyone with a potential claim to hurry up and file�waiting until you�re sure you�ve been discriminated against will, under Ledbetter, often mean your case is time barred.
I have to say it�s hard for me to believe that anyone who is really committed to equal pay would oppose this mild and sensible piece of legislation-- it doesn't open us up to lawsuits for "all kinds of problems"-- only for the problem of discriminatory pay. Opposition suggests that McCain is most concerned with reducing the absolute number of cases filed�whether or not they have merit. |
Another strike against McCain for me. The Republican legislator's blind invocation of tort reform and the voodoo ghosts of 'frivolous lawsuits' really piss me off. When the Supreme Court makes an unpopular decision, the immediate effect is that the legislature can change it. Its one thing to oppose this move on the merits. Its another to conjure empty fears and phantoms concerning litigation. Especially concerning allegations of discrimination.
Moreover, such a phantom makes even less sense when we consider that the EEOC is a separate administrative court specifically designed and designated to deal with discrimination claims. The EEOC encourages mediation and dispute resolution. And finally, I guarantee if you read this post and follow the links, you'll know more about the EEOC than McCain ever has.
Well, the Equal Pay Bill has been defeated by the GOP Senate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Foul Play Act
| Quote: |
The Foul Play Act
April 26, 2008; Page A8
Every now and then � once or twice a year � Congress attempts to do the work that its constituents sent the Members to do. But most days are like Wednesday, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could find nothing more pressing than to force an awkward vote on Republicans in an election year.
[Harry Reid]
The vehicle was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which passed the House last summer but which President Bush has threatened to veto. Ms. Ledbetter worked at Goodyear Tire & Rubber for 20 years before retiring a decade ago. Only after she took her pension � and her old boss had died � did she sue her former employer for pay discrimination. Last May, the Supreme Court sensibly ruled that the statute of limitations on these cases means what it was intended to mean. To wit: A claim that is not filed in a timely fashion (within 180 days in most pay-discrimination suits) should be thrown out.
Ms. Ledbetter took the novel view that decisions made decades ago by her now-deceased former boss affected her pay all the way up to her retirement, so each paycheck was a new discriminatory act. On this theory, there would be no statute of limitations at all. Cases could be brought long after relevant evidence and witnesses had passed from the scene. In practice, every such suit would become a new trial lawyer pay day, as employers settled cases they would find impossible to defend.
Democrats decided to make this enterprising legal theory the law of the land via the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Forty-one Republicans filibustered, so the bill stalled, as Mr. Reid no doubt expected. As one Senator told us, if Mr. Reid had really wanted the bill to pass, he would have cajoled the Republicans he needed beforehand. Instead, he rushed it to the floor, let Ms. Ledbetter's cause go down in flames, and then let the Democratic Party call out the Republicans who voted nay.
Expect attack ads denouncing GOP candidates for opposing "fair pay" to appear this fall. We hope Republicans fight back by calling the bill what it really is � the unfair pay for the trial bar act. Kudos to Senate Republicans for taking a stand against bad policy and partisan opportunism. |
This is nothing more than a cynical election year ploy brought to by the party run by trial lawyers. This was Reid's attempt to make Republicans look bad in an election year. There were no compromises, there were no discussions, only a rush to headlines as painting Republicans as being unfair. Kudos, indeed, to the Republicans for taking a stand against such nonsense.
Here is an interesting video on trial lawyers, fraud, corruption, democrats and the US Senate. Trial lawyers and democrats want to regulate everything under the sun to the government prescribed millimeter. Yet, when we want to regulate the trial lawyers via tort reform, that would just be unacceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
