This vote was on a bill that would allow employees to file suit for wage discrimination within 180 days of the time they received their last paycheck. It also would stipulate that employees who won a discrimination suit are entitled to up to two years of back pay.
The bill would, in effect, nullify a Supreme Court decision from 2007 setting out a timeframe in which workers who believe they were victims of wage discrimination must file a suit. The case required that suits be filed within 180 days of when the alleged bias had first occurred. The decision was brought to light in Congress by a woman named Lily Ledbetter, an Alabama tire company employee who discovered that she had been paid less than men doing the same work, but only after 20 years of employment, making her ineligible for filing suit.
“This is our moment to fight for economic freedom and to eliminate the systemic discrimination faced by women workers. Because what we know is at stake, had the Paycheck Fairness Act been the law of the land when Lilly Ledbetter decided to go to court, she would have had a far better opportunity to receive just compensation for the discrimination that she endured,” said Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.
"For years, Lilly Ledbetter was paid less than her male counterparts just because she was a woman, but she was unable to know that because she could not discuss her pay with any of the other supervisors, the people in the place of employment. That is wrong. They should be allowed to do that," said George Miller, D-Calif. "Such policies silence workers and allow employers to hide discriminatory pay practices. Employees should feel free to discuss their pay. It is often the only way that they can discover discriminatory pay practice and seek to rectify them."
Republicans complained bitterly that the change would invite a host of new discrimination lawsuits by lawyers eager to collect fees. Democrats counter that claim, saying the law will only restore what was in place prior to 2007.
"This bill isn’t needed to protect women from wage discrimination. Such protections are already included in the law. No, this bill is about something entirely different. Rather than addressing the real concerns of working families, issues like job training, health care, or a lack of workplace flexibility, this bill invites more and costlier lawsuits," said Buck McKeon, R-Calif.
By a vote of 247-171, the House passed the bill. All but three Republicans present voted against the measure. All but five Democrats present voted for the measure. The end result is that the House passed a bill that would make it easier for employees to file pay discrimination lawsuits against employers.
The Middle-Class Position:
The Middle Class Supports. Current and aspiring middle-class Americans need the protection of strong anti-discrimination laws to ensure that they are treated fairly by employers. But the mere existence of these laws is not sufficient: the practical ability to enforce them in a meaningful way is crucial. By clarifying a technicality in employment discrimination law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act deters discriminatory practices in the workplace and ensures that when discrimination does occur, wronged employees can receive fair compensation.
This legislation clarifies that employment discrimination law should be interpreted the way courts have traditionally understood it – until the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a more restrictive interpretation in the 2007 Ledbetter V. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. decision. In this case, the Court ruled that plaintiff Lilly Ledbetter was not eligible for compensation despite years of being paid far less than her male peers and even some male subordinates. According the Court, unlawful discrimination had occurred only when her employer first set the discriminatory pay rate, even though Ledbetter had no way of knowing about it until years later. Under this ruling, since Ledbetter’s employer was able to conceal the discrimination for years and she did not find out about the discrimination until it was too late to file a complaint (within 180 days of the first discriminatory paycheck, according to the Court), she had no legal recourse. By reaffirming that a fresh discrimination offense occurs each time an individual is impacted by a discriminatory practice, including each paycheck that includes unfair compensation, this legislation effectively reverses the Supreme Court’s harmful decision and ensures that people subjected to discrimination in the future will continue to have effective recourse to the law.
From the Experts:
“Under the Court’s decision, the discrimination Ledbetter proved is not redressable under Title VII. Each and every pay decision she did not immediately challenge wiped the slate clean. Consideration may not be given to the cumulative effect of a series of decisions that, together, set her pay well below that of every male area manager. Knowingly carrying past pay discrimination forward must be treated as lawful conduct. Ledbetter may not be compensated for the lower pay she was in fact receiving when she complained to the EEOC…The Court’s approbation of these consequences is totally at odds with the robust protection against workplace discrimination Congress intended Title VII to secure… Once again, the ball is in Congress’ court.”–Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissenting opinion in Ledbetter V. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (May 29, 2007)
“This legislation reflects the reality of the American workplace, that most of us just don’t know our coworkers’ salaries relative to our own. In fact, many employers prohibit workers from discussing their salaries, making it that much more difficult to uncover wage discrimination. Employers who pay their workers unequally should not be allowed a ‘get out of jail free’ card because they’re able to keep the decision to discriminate secret for more than 180 days. The ACLU applauds the House of Representatives for its support of this legislation.”-Caroline Fredrickson, Director, the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office (July 31, 2007)
Beyond this Bill:
The effective right to sue an employer is vital for combating discrimination – especially since the fear of lawsuits can deter discriminatory conduct from occurring in the first place. But the courts are a last resort, not the primary means of regulatory enforcement. In order for middle-class Americans to live and work unencumbered by bias, the Department of Labor must more vigorously enforce anti-discrimination law.
Our researchers and writers continually analyze how congressional actions affect middle-class households and which members of Congress deserve a “thumbs up” for their vote. Support the people working to keep you informed.
Injustice Index Facts
Year in which Ledbetter received a “Top Performance” award from the company: 1996
Amount Lilly Ledbetter was paid per month in 1997, the last full year she worked for Goodyear Tire Co.: $3,727
Amount the lowest paid of the 15 men doing similar work for the company was paid per month in 1997: $4,286
Median annual earnings for U.S. full-time, year-round, male workers in 2006: $42,261
Median annual earnings for U.S. full-time, year-round, female workers in 2006: $32,515
Search our analyses of legislation
significant to America’s current and
aspiring middle class, and find out
how members of Congress voted on
those bills.
By Keyword
By Legislator
By Bill
Issues
THEMIDDLECLASS.ORG
TheMiddleClass.org keeps you informed on what your representatives in Congress are doing that affects the current and aspiring middle class and gives you the facts you need to hold them accountable. Read More
