Senate to Take Up Bill on Pay Discrimination
/From CQ Politics [HERE]
By Karoun Demirjian, CQ Staff
Lilly Ledbetter worked 19 years at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Gadsden, Ala., but could hardly have imagined what a cause célèbre she’d become. Last year the Supreme Court ruled against her in a case that effectively locked in a statute of limitations for wage discrimination suits.
Now a bill carrying Ledbetter’s name is headed for the Senate floor and could overturn the high court’s ruling, if proponents can rally enough support to clear procedural hurdles and a potential presidential veto. Late Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., filed cloture on a motion to proceed to the bill.
The root of the bill is last May’s Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. Ledbetter, the area manager of the plant, had sued the company after learning that her salary had been 15 percent less than that of the lowest-paid male employee in her position for several years.
A lower court awarded her almost $4 million in damages. But the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, based on an understanding that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission procedures require claims to be filed within 180 days of a discriminatory action first being taken. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court essentially agreed, ruling that Ledbetter’s complaint was “untimely.”
The decision provoked an outcry from women’s organizations, labor unions and civil rights advocacy groups; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg urged lawmakers to pass legislation gutting the decision. The legislation, introduced in June by George Miller , D-Calif., passed in the House, 225-199, in late July (HR 2831). A companion bill (S 1843) was introduced in the Senate by Edward M. Kennedy , D-Mass.
The Miller legislation would essentially say that employers could be sued for wage discrimination every time they issue a paycheck, regardless of how long ago the alleged discrimination occurred. The bill would also allow for wronged employees to be paid up to two years’ worth of back wages.
Supporters of the measure say it simply would restore the intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which dictates that equal work deserves equal pay.
“Pay discrimination is exceedingly difficult to detect and mounts over time as raises and bonuses are calculated,” said Jocelyn Samuels, a vice president at the National Women’s Law Center. “Congress wanted employers to have incentives for voluntarily complying with the law. But by insulating employers from any challenge if they engage in discriminatory practices for more than 180 days . . . it will make it virtually impossible for people to challenge the pay discrimination to which they are being subjected.”
According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics from 2005, when compared with the wages of white men, women earned only 77 cents on the dollar. The difference was even more marked for African-American women, who earned less than 72 cents for every dollar earned by white men, and Hispanic women, who earned less than 59 cents.
The bill’s opponents, however, say the measure represents undue meddling that would subject businesses to unsubstantiated, potentially endless lawsuits.
A statement of administration policy says the changes proposed in HR 2831 “would serve to impede justice and undermine the important goal of having allegations of discrimination expeditiously resolved. Furthermore, the effective elimination of any statute of limitations in this area would be contrary to the centuries-old notion of a limitations period for all lawsuits.”
Bumpy Road in the Senate
Senate to Take Up Bill on Pay Discrimination
Prospects in the Senate are uncertain. The Senate version of the measure has 43 cosponsors, but only two are Republicans: Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine.
Reid’s cloture motion begins the process to bring the measure to a vote on the Senate floor after the conclusion of debate on disabled veterans’ legislation.
But whether supporters will carry the 60 votes needed to clear the cloture hurdle — not to mention the two-thirds majority needed to safeguard against President Bush’s veto threat — is far from certain.
“Certainly a majority of the members of the Senate will go on record about what is fair and what is right, but . . . to get the 60 votes, that’s a battle,” said Kennedy.
The outcome in the Senate will probably be close and likely will turn on the votes of moderates facing tough re-election campaigns in 2008, such as Susan Collins , R-Maine. A vote perceived by some as being against workers’ rights might be a difficult sell to constituents. The return of the Democratic presidential hopefuls — Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois — from the campaign trail in time for a vote is also considered crucial by supporters. It was unclear whether they would appear for a vote might be or when an actual vote on the measure could occur — likely not before late this week.
By Karoun Demirjian, CQ Staff
Lilly Ledbetter worked 19 years at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Gadsden, Ala., but could hardly have imagined what a cause célèbre she’d become. Last year the Supreme Court ruled against her in a case that effectively locked in a statute of limitations for wage discrimination suits.
Now a bill carrying Ledbetter’s name is headed for the Senate floor and could overturn the high court’s ruling, if proponents can rally enough support to clear procedural hurdles and a potential presidential veto. Late Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., filed cloture on a motion to proceed to the bill.
The root of the bill is last May’s Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. Ledbetter, the area manager of the plant, had sued the company after learning that her salary had been 15 percent less than that of the lowest-paid male employee in her position for several years.
A lower court awarded her almost $4 million in damages. But the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, based on an understanding that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission procedures require claims to be filed within 180 days of a discriminatory action first being taken. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court essentially agreed, ruling that Ledbetter’s complaint was “untimely.”
The decision provoked an outcry from women’s organizations, labor unions and civil rights advocacy groups; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg urged lawmakers to pass legislation gutting the decision. The legislation, introduced in June by George Miller , D-Calif., passed in the House, 225-199, in late July (HR 2831). A companion bill (S 1843) was introduced in the Senate by Edward M. Kennedy , D-Mass.
The Miller legislation would essentially say that employers could be sued for wage discrimination every time they issue a paycheck, regardless of how long ago the alleged discrimination occurred. The bill would also allow for wronged employees to be paid up to two years’ worth of back wages.
Supporters of the measure say it simply would restore the intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which dictates that equal work deserves equal pay.
“Pay discrimination is exceedingly difficult to detect and mounts over time as raises and bonuses are calculated,” said Jocelyn Samuels, a vice president at the National Women’s Law Center. “Congress wanted employers to have incentives for voluntarily complying with the law. But by insulating employers from any challenge if they engage in discriminatory practices for more than 180 days . . . it will make it virtually impossible for people to challenge the pay discrimination to which they are being subjected.”
According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics from 2005, when compared with the wages of white men, women earned only 77 cents on the dollar. The difference was even more marked for African-American women, who earned less than 72 cents for every dollar earned by white men, and Hispanic women, who earned less than 59 cents.
The bill’s opponents, however, say the measure represents undue meddling that would subject businesses to unsubstantiated, potentially endless lawsuits.
A statement of administration policy says the changes proposed in HR 2831 “would serve to impede justice and undermine the important goal of having allegations of discrimination expeditiously resolved. Furthermore, the effective elimination of any statute of limitations in this area would be contrary to the centuries-old notion of a limitations period for all lawsuits.”
Bumpy Road in the Senate
Senate to Take Up Bill on Pay Discrimination
Prospects in the Senate are uncertain. The Senate version of the measure has 43 cosponsors, but only two are Republicans: Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine.
Reid’s cloture motion begins the process to bring the measure to a vote on the Senate floor after the conclusion of debate on disabled veterans’ legislation.
But whether supporters will carry the 60 votes needed to clear the cloture hurdle — not to mention the two-thirds majority needed to safeguard against President Bush’s veto threat — is far from certain.
“Certainly a majority of the members of the Senate will go on record about what is fair and what is right, but . . . to get the 60 votes, that’s a battle,” said Kennedy.
The outcome in the Senate will probably be close and likely will turn on the votes of moderates facing tough re-election campaigns in 2008, such as Susan Collins , R-Maine. A vote perceived by some as being against workers’ rights might be a difficult sell to constituents. The return of the Democratic presidential hopefuls — Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois — from the campaign trail in time for a vote is also considered crucial by supporters. It was unclear whether they would appear for a vote might be or when an actual vote on the measure could occur — likely not before late this week.
