Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Passes Senate
The bill passed last night. That didn't take too long after the House's passage, although it still needs to be signed by President Obama (damn it feels good to write that). He strongly supports the legislation so that we should be in the clear.
However, the Paycheck Fairness Act still waits in the wings for Senate's passage. Kia Franklin at Tort Deform reminds us why both the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act are critical:
The passage of Ledbetter as written will be a significant victory, but it puts us back to square one. To give the new administration the tools to end wage discrimination, a second comprehensive law - also passed last week by the House - is essential. The Paycheck Fairness Act would update the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Shepherded by departing Senator Clinton, it would create incentives for employer compliance with equal pay laws, rearm federal enforcement and outreach efforts, and encourage programs to help eliminate the persistent wage gap.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Passes Senate.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11533
I'M SO BEYOND SPEECHLESS WITH JOY.
Wow, if this had been passed when Bush was in office, it most certainly would have been vetoed. What a different a new administration makes!
I know! I kind of can't believe it. I am 25 years old, and never in my adult life has stuff like this (or repealing the global gag rule omg!) seemed like a real possibility, for exactly that reason. Wow.
"Earlier in the day, the Senate voted 55-40 to reject an alternative by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. She and other Republicans contended that the legislation would effectively neutralize the statute of limitations, subject companies to more lawsuits and be a bonanza for trial lawyers.
"This bill is about effectively eliminating the statute of limitations on pay discrimination," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "Job creators have enough to worry about these days. We shouldn't add the threat of never-ending lawsuits."
...
Hutchison said her alternative would give employees the opportunity to seek redress for discrimination while protecting businesses from employees who might wait months or years to file claims in order to drive up damage awards."
Umm.. am I the only person who thinks that there SHOULD be a threat of lawsuits, that business SHOULD feel scared about discriminating, and that we SHOULDN'T be "protecting businesses" from laws against discrimination when they discriminate?
..honestly, sometimes they just don't get it.
Goanna - I disagree with the Hutchison amendment, but it is not as bad as the article suggests (I am a civil rights lawyer). While the version that passed renews the statute of limitations period with each paycheck, Huthison's version would create a "discovery rule," under which the statute of limitations would not begin until a "reasonable plaintiff" would have discovered that the discrimination. This rule applies in many settings where plaintiffs do not know that they have been wronged until it's too late to sue (under the rigid rules). Examples include, suits alleging malpractice for failure to diagnose breast cancer, or for products liability that cause harm much later than use of the product.
The difference between the two: under the version that passed, the statute of limitations is in perpetual renewal (so long as the salary differential exists). Under the other plan, plaintiff has to sue after she/he could have reasonably discovered the wrongdoing. On some level it is a balance between the plaintiff and defendant's interests. Every litigant faces a statute of limitations. So the rule doesn't treat discrimination victims differently.
Isn't it the case though that "so long as the salary differential exists" is an awfully important qualification, though? My understanding was that the new statute of limitations will be 180 days since the last paycheck received (which seems perfectly reasonable to me, since the discrimination occurs whenever the plaintiff is paid other than what they should be). So, it's not as if there isn't a statute of limitations on this?