What Ledbetter Wouldn’t Do

What Ledbetter Wouldn’t Do

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

There’s been a lot of fuss about the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which Senate Republicans successfully threatened to filibuster yesterday. And since Senate members keep saying the legislation would eliminate any statute of limitations on when employees could file for redress–and the news media keeps liberally quoting without immediately correcting them–a few points bear mentioning.

First off: Ledbetter v. Goodyear didn’t create the requirement that an employee lodge charges within 180 days after experiencing wage discrimination. Congress did, under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which declared a worker has to file a discrimination complaint within 180 days of the alleged unlawful practice. Before the Court ruled on Ledbetter last May, every time a worker received a new paycheck, that 180-day clock was restarted–because every unequal paycheck was considered a new illegal practice. What the Court did do was decide, instead, that the 180-day statute of limitation starts to run out from the moment the original, discriminatory pay decision was made. In other words: it’s okay for employers to pay workers at unequal rates, so long as they can get away with it for at least 180 days.

The Ledbetter Pay Act wasn’t “designed to create a massive amount of new litigation,” as Sen. McConnell would have it. What it does is restore the pre-Ledbetter interpretation used by nine Federal circuit courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Far from allowing victims to sue for unlimited amounts of back pay, the law would limit claims filed to a 2-year maximum. So even if the Senate could muster the support to pass the bill, much less override Bush’s threatened veto, the best someone who’d worked for nearly 20 years at a discriminatory rate–like Lilly Ledbetter–could hope for would be two years’ redress. And maybe some sense of restored justice.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x