Discriminated Against? Better Act Fast
Lilly M. Ledbetter went to work for Goodyear at its Gadsden, Alabama tire plant in 1979. I’ve never been inside a tire plant, but I imagine that it’s not a particularly genteel place. Almost twenty years later, as Goodyear’s business declined to the point where layoffs were underway and plant closure was in the wind, it came to light that male managers of similar responsibility were making as much as 40% more than Ledbetter. Oops. The law doesn’t allow pay differentials based on sex or age. Ledbetter sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and was awarded a judgment of almost $4 million.
Goodyear appealed, the district court ruled in Goodyear’s favor on several points and knocked the judgment down into the realm of reality, $360,000. Goodyear, elated at the victory, promptly sent over a cashier’s check and two dozen roses. Sorry, Goodyear appealed to the 11th District court which raised additional issues, and finally the case landed at the US Supreme Court where, last year, the company prevailed completely.
The reason? Claims under Title VII have to be filed within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory action. Now I may be out of touch with the norms of the workplace, having only worked as an employee for about three years of my adult life, but I’m pretty sure that in most environments you don’t know exactly what your coworkers get paid. As a recent hire in a large factory, I’m guessing that there is no way to find out what your co-evals take home, and no way to ascertain whether the difference is based on merit, length of employment, or discrimination in the first few months on the job. Even after ten years, I doubt that enough information would be readily available to go to court. By any logic, every pay review that is based on the previous wage or salary is ratification, by the employer, of their original discrimination.
Yesterday, the House passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by a vote of 247 to 171. President Bush announced that he would veto the bill along with another employment discrimination bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, passed the same day. But who cares? Knowing the lamentable Shrub’s feelings, consideration of these bills by the Senate will be timed so that he won’t be sitting at the desk when the bill arrives for the president’s signature.
The rules of litigation probably mean that Ledbetter won’t get anything from Goodyear. If I Were King, I’d make sure that this went back to court so the new rules would allow Ledbetter to enhance her retirement. And the argument that discrimination needs to be identified, documented, and papers filed within 180 days of the first discriminatory action by an employer? I’d suggest that it be put to good use, mulching the corporate rose garden at Akron, Ohio. I’m sure there is enough of this sort of rich organic material already available at Crawford, Texas that Goodyear can have it all.
1 Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] Meanwhile, the letter of appointment was presented to the secretary of the Senate on the 5th, but the Senate refused to seat Mr Burris when the session opened on the 6th, claiming that the Senate rules and tradition require the certification by the Secretary of State. The Illinois Supreme Court carefully reviewed the Senate’s rules and determined that there was no such requirement. In other words, Harry Reid is full of the same rich nutrient material we suggested be taken to Akron yesterday. [...]
Pingback :: Sunday, 11 January 2009 @ 10:22