What Ledbetter Wouldn’t Do

What Ledbetter Wouldn’t Do

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

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.

Support The Nation’s June Fundraising Campaign

With the midterm elections now firmly upon us, the question is whether Democratic candidates will do more than merely occupy ballot lines as mild alternatives to the red-hot crisis that is Donald Trump.

As Trump spends over $1 billion a day on a globally destabilizing war on Iran and admits that he doesn’t “think about Americans’ financial situation,” millions across the country are struggling with the surging costs of essentials. Democrats must seize this moment and advance bold, small-“d” populist ideas—not settle for cynical caution that once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Nation elevates progressive ideas, movements, and elected officials achieving real change across the country into the national conversation. At the same time, our journalists are exposing how crypto and AI-funded super PACs are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to knock out candidates they oppose, reporting on the devastating impact of the Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, and sounding the alarm on attempts by red states to quickly redraw electoral maps, disenfranchising Southern Black voters.

We can play this critical role because of support from readers like you. This June, we’re raising $20,000 to power The Nation’s independent journalism in the run-up to November’s immensely consequential elections.

It’s in our power to build a more just society, and your support at this critical moment brings us closer to that bold vision. I hope you’ll donate today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Huevel
Editor and Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x