Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Pay discrimination

Pay discrimination
Ledbetter v. Goodyear

The Central Question
Should a discriminatory action that happened long ago but that has effects that continue to the present day fall within the statute of limitations for the federal Civil Rights Act?

Background
Lilly M. Ledbetter worked for 19 years as a manager at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber plant in Gadsden, Ala. For years, she was paid less than men at the same level, and by 1997, as the only female manager, she was earning less than the lowest-paid man in the department. Is each new paycheck, reflecting a salary lower than it would have been without the initial discrimination, a recurring violation that sets the clock running again? Or does the passage of time, without fresh acts of intentional discrimination, render the initial injury a nonevent in the eyes of the law?

Related Links
Court Explores Complexities in Job Discrimination Case Federal law prohibits discrimination on the job, requiring employers to pay their employees without regard to race, sex, religion or national origin. Many complexities lie behind that simple statement, as a Supreme Court argument made abundantly clear. (Nov. 28, 2006)

Arguments Transcript (supremecourtus.gov)

3 comments:

Jay Mangubat said...

Justice Dep. Sues New York City, Citing Bias In Hiring Firefighters
When I took that little quiz in school yesterday about firefighters I found the questions really confusting. I did not get them all right. I think they should give the physical test first, then go from there. The written test should go second. If I was in a fire, I would like a strong person to take me down the ladder and out of the fire. I understand that especially in New York most firefighters are white and that isn't right either. Maybe they should change the people that actually hire everybody.

Edwin Genao El Famoso said...

Court Explores Complexities in Job Discrimination Case.

Everyone should make the same pay for doing the same job. What happened to Lilly M. Ledbetter was not right. Over the years she should’ve gotten the same pay as the men she was working with.
I think it was horrible that at first they gave her 3 million dollars then they cut it down to $360,000, after that they took it all away. I’m sure she spent her own money to pay for the court case. It’s not fair at all, even though time went by. I think the companies are just afraid to lose all that money. If they weren’t so cheap in the first place none of this would’ve happened.

Sam said...

I think it is such a grey area, but Lilly Ledbetter definitely should get the money that she hadn't been paid. Being a woman doesn't warrant lower pay.

During the affirmative action presentation in my english class, I learned that in 1999, women still only made 76 cents to every dollar a man earned.

A person's salary should be based on qualification and experience, not gender or race. It is absoloutly ridiculous to think that because Ledbetter is a woman that she is any lesser than her male coworkers.