(The U.S.
Senate this week will try to overcome a filibuster on
legislation to remedy a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that
disallowed the discriminatory pay complaint filed by Goodyear
Tire employee Lilly Ledbetter. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is a
cosponsor of the bill. Leahy chairs the Senate Judiciary
Committee.)
Guest Column By Senator Patrick
Leahy
Overcoming The Supreme Court’s
Cramped Ruling On Fair Pay
The Supreme Court’s recent
decision in Ledbetter v.
Goodyear Tire struck a severe blow to the rights of
working women. More than 40 years ago, Congress acted to
prevent discrimination in the workplace based on an employee’s
sex, race, color, national origin or religion. The Ledbetter
decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court
misinterpreting congressional intent and denying justice to a
victim of discrimination.
For nearly two decades, Lilly
Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear Tire, was paid significantly
less than her male counterparts. Nonetheless, a thin majority
of justices on the Supreme Court found that she was ineligible
for Title VII protection against discriminatory pay because she
did not file her claim within 180 days of Goodyear’s repeatedly
discriminatory pay decisions.
The Supreme Court’s ruling sent
the message to big companies that wage discrimination cannot be
punished as long as it is kept under wraps. At a time when one
third of private sector employers have rules prohibiting
employees from discussing their pay with each other, the Court’s
decision ignores a reality of the workplace, that pay
discrimination is often intentionally concealed.
Ms. Ledbetter only found out that
she was earning as much as $15,000 less each year than a male
coworker with the same job and seniority when an anonymous
letter appeared on her desk weeks before her retirement. By the
time she retired in 1997, despite receiving several
performance-based awards, Ms. Ledbetter’s monthly salary was
almost $600 less than the lowest paid male manager, and $1500
less than the highest paid male manager.
Congress passed Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act to protect employees like Lilly Ledbetter from
discrimination because of their sex, race, color, national
origin or religion. The Supreme Court’s cramped interpretation
guts the purpose and intent of that bipartisan and historic
effort to root out discrimination.
Ms. Ledbetter argued that her
claim fell within the 180-day window provided under Title VII
for filing claims because she suffered continuing effects from
her employer’s discrimination. After filing a complaint with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal jury
found that she was owed almost $225,000 in back pay. Even so,
five Justices of the Supreme Court overturned the jury’s
decision, holding that Ms. Ledbetter was not protected under the
law because she filed suit more than 180 days after her
employer’s discriminatory pay decision.
This Supreme Court decision
contradicts both the spirit and clear intent of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act, which was created to protect workers against
discriminatory pay. The Court’s 5-4 decision undercuts
enforcement against discrimination based on sex, race, color,
religion, and national origin. In Justice Ginsburg’s dissent,
she wrote that the Court’s decision “is totally at odds with the
robust protection against workplace discrimination Congress
intended Title VII to secure.”
This October, Marcelle and I will
host Vermont’s twelfth annual Women’s Economic Opportunity
Conference, a chance for women to come together to learn new
career skills. Thousands of Vermont women have used these
skills to advance their careers. The Court’s Ledbetter decision
– and the need for a bill like ours to fix it – is fresh
evidence that despite years of hard work and achievement, women
continue to suffer pay discrimination.
I commend the Vermont Legislature
for passing laws requiring equal pay for equal work and barring
employers from retaliating against employees for disclosing the
amount of their wages. Unfortunately, not all states offer
these protections.
For all of the gains that women
have made in the past century, there remains a troubling
constant: Women continue to earn less than men – on average,
only 77 cents on the dollar. Discriminatory pay not only
affects women; it also affects their children, their families
and all of us who believe in the words inscribed on the Vermont
marble of the Supreme Court building, “Equal Justice Under
Law.”
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
would correct the unfortunate and cramped ruling of the Supreme
Court which denied Ms. Ledbetter equal justice. It would amend
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to clarify that an unlawful
employment practice occurs not only when that discriminatory
decision first goes into effect, but each time an individual is
affected by it, such as each time compensation is paid.
The House of Representatives
passed this bill in a bipartisan vote last summer. It also has
bipartisan support in the Senate, but unfortunately some
Republicans have objected to even considering the bill. I hope
their filibuster can be broken so that we can clarify that
discrimination against hard-working men and women in their own
workplaces is not the American way. The law and our justice
system should protect working people when it happens. Our bill
underscores this vital American principle against efforts to
devalue it.
# # # # #
