Home › Opinion › Opinion
Editorial: Shut loophole on inequality
Wage case shows dilemma
STORY TOOLS
More from Opinion
Lilly Ledbetter's pay-discrimination case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court last year and the Alabama Goodyear plant supervisor lost in a 5-4 decision.
When Ms. Ledbetter retired from her job of 19 years, she got an anonymous note that her salary of $45,000 a year was $6,600 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor. She sued for sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
She won her suit, but an appeals court overturned the verdict, relying on the letter of the law. Ms. Ledbetter had not filed her discrimination lawsuit within the proscribed 180 days after the alleged discrimination occurred, which was several years earlier.
The catch? Ms. Ledbetter did not know that, for years, she had been paid less than her male colleagues. In fact, few employees know their company's pay policies.
The court's majority opinion was that the justices were simply applying the statute as it written. In the minority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on behalf of the four dissenters, wrote: "In our view, this court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination."
The ruling, Justice Ginsburg said, was an invitation to Congress to fix the problem with the law.
Congress has tried, first with the 2007 Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which passed the House but not the Senate; and this year, the Paycheck Fairness Act, House Resolution 1338, which would strengthen protection against wage discrimination and close company loopholes. It has been met with a barrage of opposition from employers and is not expected to pass.
Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, is taking another tack, at the state level, to address the dilemma. The Star supports his Assembly Bill 437 — the Pay Equity-Ledbetter remedy. It declares that the California Legislature rejects the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law in its Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., and clarifies that the time period for an employee alleging pay discrimination runs 180 days from the date of each payment of a discriminatory wage.
Laws at the state and federal level generally prohibit wage discrimination, based on gender, for equal work in same or comparable jobs. However, laws against wage discrimination are meaningless if there is no way for employees even to know if they are being discriminated against. A change in the statute of limitations, as AB437 creates, means there is a chance at least for existing law to be applied.
Posted by laurarmc on August 27, 2008 at 6:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This legislation is a simple fix, allowing equal pay provisions to be enforced as intended.
And ladies: don't forget that when the same fix came before the US senate earlier this year, John McCain voted against it, saying it would open the door to "frivolous" law suits, which is absurd.
It was defeated by the republicans, so as of today, you have no recourse if you find yourself in Ledbetter's shoes.
Posted by Scapegoat on August 27, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
John McCain was right. This kind of interventionist tinkering does nothing for American workers. Being competitive means a business can do as they please, as they see fit. Ginsberg is an old hack from the ACLU, a Clinton appointee. A real doozy. That clown from Sacramento is obviously a bozo. Frivolous lawsuits will be the outcome of such legislation. Folks the Dimocrats work hand-in-hand with trial lawyers to "bottom feed" on creative and hardworking entrepreneurs. Don't let it happen, just say NO to this type of victim based legislation.
Posted by cassandra2 on August 27, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps the most beneficial legacy of Clinton's administraton was the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Her terse and eloquent opinions demonstrate a superior mind and a sensitive grasp of how to apply an ancient document, the Constitution, to modern times. If she were a guy, she would be likened to Holmes and that other great dissenter Brandeis.
Posted by Freedom1 on August 27, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In the mid-1980's the company I worked for, along with many major industries in this country, adopted a policy to avoid long drawn out, and yes many of them frivolous, lawsuits that determined hiring, promoting and pay based on race and sex rather than accomplishments or qualifications. The demoralization of the qualified, hard working individuals, of all races and sexes, was the result and lasts until this day. Abuses must be addressed, but to take away the ability of a company to determine, based on achievement and contribution, an individuals pay, promotions and hiring is counterproductive to productivity and fits right in line with the thinking of the ACLU and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Posted by NowHearThis on August 27, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JW, get a clue and please provide a cogent post one of these days. I doubt it however because when a Lib has an argument, they never have facts, just vitriol.
As for Ms. Ledbetter's claim, whose to say she was as competent as her male counterparts to earn an equal salary? The story doesn't even relate to the fact she even had the SAME job as the men. The story doesn't even say if this lady was a supervisor. As usual, the STAR publishes an incomplete story.
Point is simple, a company can pay anyone whatever they damn well please as far as I'm concern. Don't like it, quit and look for another job.
(There are many women who are way overpaid for what they do. Katie Couric is a prime example of that.)
Posted by sslocal on August 27, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I concur NowHearThis. In a free enterprise country like ours is, or aleast it supposed to be, the employer should pay what he thinks the job is worth. Not what the Gov tells him it should be worth.
Read Ginsbreg's opinion on the Heller case cassandra. She is way off her rocker and gives all of America a reason to vote for McCain.
Posted by Scapegoat on August 27, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point sslocal, a vote for Obamba is an affirmation that judges like Ruth "buzzi" Ginsburg represent America. Nothing further from the truth. In the arena of ideas, libs cannot compete. Therefore "judicial appointments", where lib judges feel free to re-write the Constitution, are of utmost importance.
Posted by sslocal on August 27, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jw - Never let the facts get in the way of a good bashing.
Posted by Tonic_Writes on August 27, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gotta say, I'm torn on this. Doing the same job, pay should not be based on gender ever. However, as a working woman in my mid-40s who does NOT have kids, I see women create their own glass ceiling all the time. If you have to leave at 5pm on the dot to avoid late fees at daycare, then you don't get to question why I get promoted and you don't. The amazing thing to me is how often I'm expected to make up for my co-workers. Can anyone explain why maternity leave pays a new mother NOT to work for 3 months but I don't get paid extra to do 2 jobs while she's gone????
Posted by nelsonknows on August 27, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tonic, excellent points!
Posted by nelsonknows on August 27, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The next thing you know, leftists will require tipping the same to waiters and waitresses no matter the service they give.
Posted by Tonic_Writes on August 27, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Although the essence of the court decision here was not about equal pay, it had already been determined that she was a victim of gender discrimination. - whether you agree with that or not, that was not for Ginsburg to decide so don't blame her. The issue at hand was for how long you can file such a complaint. It is a tad ridiculous to say you have to file when the first violation happens, even though you don't know about it. What I trip up over, is that we are not supposed to admit that being a parent can affect the quality and time you put into your job. I think we all - especially we women - need to come clean about that. Frankly, I think I ought to get an extra week's vacation every year I DON'T have kids because I am already working harder than the parents around me.
Posted by HotModernMom on August 27, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jw -
Didn't you have the username "jw1000"? I can tell it is you by the abrassive postings:
"stupid right wing extremists" and "ROTFLMAO at Nelsonknows Archie Bunker imitation!"
Was "jw1000" banned by the moderator?
I am not disagreeing with your posts or the article itself. Just curious. I only post every once in a while and I happen to see your postings everytime, and they are usually personal attacks against others or quick one liners like "right winger" or "nutjob".
Just on observation on my part and possible an observation the moderator should be monitering
Posted by HotModernMom on August 27, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just looked up "ROTFLMAO" on wikipedia. It stands for the following:
"Rolling On the Floor Laughing My A$s Off"
Why would anyone with half a brain post something so juvenille?
There is nothing on the board that would cause me to roll on the floor. Maybe because I have a full brain and a full life, rather than to post childish acronymns that the pre-teens are texting these days.
Let's act like adults. It helps if you want to be taken seriously and not thought of as a fool with knee jerk posting that are personal in nature.
A broken record of bashing others comments -day in and day out. Why? Why be that way?
Posted by Tonic_Writes on August 27, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It would be nice if both sides would stop with the name calling, jw isn't the only one. Present facts, or even opinions, but the personal attacks are just ridiculous and only serve to make the name caller look bad.
Posted by HotModernMom on August 27, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tonic_Writes
You are right. I just saw more jw's in this thread than other usernames. Yes, others were name calling too.
I think it is a simple but realistic request to show a little more maturity. The acronymn was just too much for me (maybe if I was 10 years old I would have appreciated it more).
Posted by HotModernMom on August 27, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Even as infrequent as I post or read posts, I am certain that "jw" is "jw1000" and under the name "jw1000" the postings were bashing attacks against others comments and personal in nature. They were also very repeditive.
Posted by ken10 on August 27, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Citizen: And your rant has what to do with the SUBJECT of the thread? Sounds off topic to me.
Posted by cassandra2 on August 27, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah, Jw, did I leave you to face the Neanderthals alone?
I have only once disagreed with Bader-Ginsberg and alway, always always been impressed with the clarity of her intellect and the grasp she had of the ethical concerns underlying her opinion. It's almost Talmudic. Not to mention the brevity of her rhetoric.
Now, if one were to attack Thomas, I could understand we were dealing with a substandard legal talent. It still frosts me that he has Thurgood Marshall's seat.
JW has admitted to being previously banned. So have I. On my occasion, I made a Freudian interpretation of another poster's frequent use of feces as a term of disapprobation.
Posted by cassandra2 on August 27, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When I was growing up the gender discrimination was thicker than the brains of most of the posters here, absolutely impenetrable. This editorial seems a good one, just tidying up the revolution begun by the women of my generation and their righteous male allies. It's a good editorial.
Of all the barriers, the informational one was worst. You cannot correct what you don't know about. In other areas we've started the clock running on statutes of limitation to begin with awareness rather than the event itself. This seems an appropriate addition.
Posted by NowHearThis on August 27, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tonic_Writes explains it the best. I didn't want to say it, but, women are always taking time off. I know a friend whose wife is taking off six months from her job because of a newborn. I asked, why didn't you, (the father) take the time off instead?
And, Tonic is correct, women beat-feet right at 5 (or whatever) to get their kids. Then blame their predicament on others.
I'm sure there are gov't employees, (cops, fire, county gov't, etc.) who have stories of females taking time off and making them do the extra work.
I have no problem paying anyone what they are worth, male or female.
And JW should try to find facts instead of typing his standard vitriolic barbs.
People make choices and DEMS shouldn't have to change societal norms and peoples' mistakes under the guise of Marxism and Socialism.
Posted by Scapegoat on August 27, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Citizen, jw/ken/jw1000/ken10 are the same person. The funniest part, he(she?) talks to him(her)self.
jw will post
ken will answer.
Pathetic, truly.
Posted by nelsonknows on August 27, 2008 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a feeling jw frequents yahoo or paltalk chatrooms. There are more leftist psychopaths on yahoo than you can shake a stick at.
Seriously, Scapegoat, Mike, Citizen, NowHear, do you ever hear anyone spewing the kind of garbage in public that you see jw/ken and cassandra spew?
These people LIVE on the internet as do most leftists because they wouldn't get away it in public.
By the way, did anyone see 911 Conspiracy freak Alex Jones assault Michelle Malkin in Denver yesterday? The Denver Police refused to intercede, AMAZING!
Posted by HotModernMom on August 27, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Scapegoat - YOU ARE RIGHT! LOOK AT THE POSTING STYLES AND NAME CALLING
Posted by jw on August 27, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Citizen: ROTFLMAO is as old as the internet. That you didn't recognize it proves what an internet amateur you are.
Posted by ken10 on August 27, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Citizen: And your rant has what to do with the SUBJECT of the thread? Sounds off topic to me.
JW, KEN, JW1000 HOW PATHETIC. WHAT A LONELY MAN YOU MUST BE TO DO THIS!
ARE THERE NO RULES ON THIS WEBSITE?
Posted by Tonic_Writes on August 28, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sigh. I guess there is no meaningful discussion happening on this board anymore.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.