Webmaster
05-30-2007, 08:42 AM
Foreword: In a similar way that Supreme Court decision in the case Kelo Verses the City of New London struck a blow and served to fundamentally alter property rights, the following case strikes a major blow to the right to sue for discrimination.
Supreme Court says worker took too long to sue
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Lilly Ledbetter earned thousands of dollars less than the men she worked with at Goodyear. She went to court, proved her discrimination case and won $3.8 million from a jury.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said she could collect nothing. In a 5-4 decision limiting workers' ability to sue for pay discrimination, the court said Ledbetter waited too long to complain.
The ruling drew a blistering dissent from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said the court majority "does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination."
The decision underscored a provision in a federal civil-rights law that sets a 180-day deadline for employees to claim they are being paid less because of their race, sex, religion or national origin.
Without a deadline, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, employers would find it difficult to defend against claims "arising from employment decisions that are long past."
Ginsburg urged Congress to amend the law to correct the court's "parsimonious reading" of it. Siding with Ginsburg were Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
Ledbetter was a longtime supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala. She said sex discrimination was behind a series of decisions that left her pay significantly below that of men who performed similar work.
After 19 years with Goodyear, Ledbetter was making $45,000 a year, $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor. The company said poor evaluations were the reasons for Ledbetter's salary. She retired in 1998, shortly after claiming discrimination.
A jury sided with Ledbetter, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because she had waited too long to begin her lawsuit.
The Supreme Court agreed that workers who wait too long under the civil-rights law are out of luck. Alito said that "the passage of time may seriously diminish the ability of the parties and the fact finder to reconstruct what actually happened."
Ledbetter said she didn't sue earlier because employees are less willing to rock the boat when they are new and have no reason to believe there could be such pay disparity.
Ginsburg noted that Ledbetter's pay started out comparable to what men were earning but slipped over time. She said Ledbetter faced an impossible choice: Sue early and probably lose a half-baked case, or wait until the evidence is strong enough to win and be told she sued too late.
Ledbetter, 69, said she was "very, very disappointed" by the ruling. "I worked a lot of years doing the hard work, and not to get paid as much as the men will affect me every day in the future" in the form of lower retirement benefits.
Material from The Washington Post is included in this report
source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003726928_scotus30.html
Supreme Court says worker took too long to sue
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Lilly Ledbetter earned thousands of dollars less than the men she worked with at Goodyear. She went to court, proved her discrimination case and won $3.8 million from a jury.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said she could collect nothing. In a 5-4 decision limiting workers' ability to sue for pay discrimination, the court said Ledbetter waited too long to complain.
The ruling drew a blistering dissent from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said the court majority "does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination."
The decision underscored a provision in a federal civil-rights law that sets a 180-day deadline for employees to claim they are being paid less because of their race, sex, religion or national origin.
Without a deadline, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, employers would find it difficult to defend against claims "arising from employment decisions that are long past."
Ginsburg urged Congress to amend the law to correct the court's "parsimonious reading" of it. Siding with Ginsburg were Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
Ledbetter was a longtime supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala. She said sex discrimination was behind a series of decisions that left her pay significantly below that of men who performed similar work.
After 19 years with Goodyear, Ledbetter was making $45,000 a year, $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor. The company said poor evaluations were the reasons for Ledbetter's salary. She retired in 1998, shortly after claiming discrimination.
A jury sided with Ledbetter, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because she had waited too long to begin her lawsuit.
The Supreme Court agreed that workers who wait too long under the civil-rights law are out of luck. Alito said that "the passage of time may seriously diminish the ability of the parties and the fact finder to reconstruct what actually happened."
Ledbetter said she didn't sue earlier because employees are less willing to rock the boat when they are new and have no reason to believe there could be such pay disparity.
Ginsburg noted that Ledbetter's pay started out comparable to what men were earning but slipped over time. She said Ledbetter faced an impossible choice: Sue early and probably lose a half-baked case, or wait until the evidence is strong enough to win and be told she sued too late.
Ledbetter, 69, said she was "very, very disappointed" by the ruling. "I worked a lot of years doing the hard work, and not to get paid as much as the men will affect me every day in the future" in the form of lower retirement benefits.
Material from The Washington Post is included in this report
source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003726928_scotus30.html