Video Summary
Bill Statistics
The Middle Class Position
The middle class supports.
How They Voted
58% with middle class
40% against middle class
1% did not vote
Grades
Senate
The Senate receives a grade of C for its support of the middle class on this piece of legislation.
59 Senators voted for the middle-class position; 36 voted against.
House
The House receives a grade of C for its support of the middle class on this piece of legislation.
250 Representatives voted for the middle-class position; 177 voted against.
Share This Report Card
See how each member voted on this bill:
(S.181) On passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which expanded the time allowed for bringing a wage discrimination suit.
Introduced:
01.08.2009 [Senate]
01.08.2009 [Senate]
Sponsor:
[-]
[-]
Signed into Law: 01.29.2009
2009 Senate Roll Call #14:
Yea-61, Nay-36
The Legislation:
This was a vote on passage of S. 181, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. S.181 changed the law to say that the 180 day statute of limitations for filing a pay discrimination suit begins again with each new paycheck that contains the unfair pay. The bill was developed in response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision holding that the 180 day statute of limitations on equal-pay law suits begins on the date the pay was originally agreed upon, and does not begin again with each new paycheck containing the discriminatory pay. That ruling had prevented Lilly Ledbetter from recovering for unequal pay because she did not learn that she was receiving unequal pay until years after she was hired.
Sen. Mikulski, (D-MD), who led the effort on behalf of the legislation, said that its intent is “simply (to) restore the law as it existed before the recent Supreme Court decision so that we make sure the statute of limitations runs from the date of the actual payment of a discriminatory wage, not just from the time of hiring.” Mikulski addressed the concern of opponents of the bill that it will generate a wave of lawsuits, and argued it would not “because it did not trigger, open-ended, millions of lawsuits before the Supreme Court decision” when workers thought that the 180 day statute of limitations kept resetting with each paycheck. Mikulski concluded by saying: “(W)age discrimination not only affects women, but it affects all who are discriminated against, and it is often minorities. We want to be sure we keep the courthouse door open.”
Sen. Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also supported the bill. He noted that “many employers do not allow their employees to learn how their compensation compares to their coworkers'. They can hide it . . . and pray that they never find out how they were discriminated against, and then say when they are found out . . . you should have filed suit earlier. The fact that we had it all locked up and you couldn't possibly have known you were being discriminated against is your fault.”
Most Republicans opposed the bill for a variety of reasons. Sen. Graham (R-SC) said S.181 would create “a statutory statute of limitations that we have not seen before, that, quite frankly, does not make a whole lot of sense . . . The ability to create a job in America and keep a job here is very much at risk . . . We are on the verge, in my opinion, of having . . . a litigation system that is going to drive people out of business and leave this country. Quite frankly, if we go down the road this bill is charting, we are going to make it harder to do business in this country and we will not enhance fairness.”
Sen. DeMint (R-SC) echoed the sentiments of his South Carolina colleague and said he opposed the bill because it “creates more uncertainty for the very businesses we need to create the jobs and to keep the jobs we have . . . in the middle of a recession.” Sen. Enzi (R-WY) suggested that it was not “fair to sue a businessperson over something that may or may not have happened in his or her company decades earlier” He asked: “(H)ow do you prove something didn't happen years ago when the only witness other than the accuser is absent?”
The vote was 61-36, largely along party line basis. Fifty-seven Democrats and four Republicans voted “aye”. All thirty-six “nay” votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, the Senate passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 and sent it on the House.
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.
