Obama signs pay equity law

[Eika35]

Home.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama signed his first bill into law on Thursday, handing his labor and women's rights backers a victory by reversing a 2007 Supreme Court decision that made it harder to sue for pay discrimination. With the woman for whom the law was named at his side, Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act at a White House ceremony. The Democratic-led Congress passed the measure this week and many leaders attended the signing. "Signing this bill today is to send a clear message: that making our economy work means making sure it works for everybody, that there are no second-class citizens in our workplaces," said the Democratic president. Pay equity was a sensitive issue during the presidential election campaign last year, especially among labor unions and women voters. On average, U.S. women are paid 23 percent less than men, while minority women receive even less. < snip > Ledbetter is an Alabama woman who discovered after 19 years on the job at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co that she was the lowest-paid supervisor at her plant despite having more experience than several male co-workers. A jury found she was the victim of discrimination. But during the Bush administration, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision reversed what critics described as decades of legal precedent by declaring that discrimination claims must be filed within 180 days of the first offense. The court rejected the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's contention that each new discriminatory paycheck triggers a new 180-day statute of limitations. The law signed by Obama amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act to put the old EEOC standard into law, and covers pay discrimination based on gender, race, national origin, religion, age and disabilities. Some Republicans and business leaders have expressed concern the measure could trigger an explosion of lawsuits based on old claims, discourage employers from hiring women and undermine efforts to stem the recession. < snip >

Print Story: Obama signs pay equity law - Yahoo! News
Your comments

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Eika35 Home. Print Story: Obama signs pay equity law - Yahoo! News Your comments

Equal pay has been the law since 1963. This is an attempt by the legislative and executive branches to overturn a Supreme Court decision - something neither branch has the constitutional authority to do.

[Eika35]

The Legislative branch can come up with a Constitutional law that can be signed by the Executive branch. It doesn't overrule the Supreme Court, but does change the law.

[ironeagle]

Actually I read this thread a few minutes ago. What they have done is passed further measures to pohibit hidden unequal pay. They are going to congress to pass a new bill extending the time that the discriminated have to file their lawsuits, this means that if passed it owuld go through the proper channels through legislation not overide judicial power. Judges must enforce the law, therefore there is no violation of powers. Additionally what it aims to do is stop companies from being allowed to discriminate pay wise, because the former ruling allows companies to be exempt from civil suit if they can fool the employee for 180 days. The new legislation will allow the employee to have 180 from the last paycheck they recieved in which they were paid unfair wages. This means thta basically if a woman finds out after working for a company for four years she's been paid 30% less than other equal employees who were male, then she can still have the ability to file suit under the current law, she would get nothing just because the company had fooled her for 180 days. The bill is fair and correct and it owuldn't be needed if these companies wheren't being allowed to escape any reprocussions for their deviant behavior.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Eika35 Quote by: article WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama signed his first bill into law on Thursday, handing his labor and women's rights backers a victory by reversing a 2007 Supreme Court decision that made it harder to sue for pay discrimination. ... Some Republicans and business leaders have expressed concern the measure could trigger an explosion of lawsuits based on old claims, discourage employers from hiring women and undermine efforts to stem the recession.

I believe he's trying to do the right thing here, but I do agree with the "Some Republicans and business leaders" that this could very well open the flood gates for lawsuits..... we all know that we need more lawsuits in the world...

[ironeagle]

Yes but a lawsuit is not frivelous when it's against a company that has been purposley discriminating against an employee based soley on gender, or race or religion. What else would you have them do? You could fine them but then the victim gets nothing, or jail them and again the victim gets nothing and on top of the nothing they would get the tax payers would have to pay for their encarceration. Since when is it wrong to win civil suits against people who steal, and that's what a company does to an employee when they discriminate like that, steal from them.

[Matt W]

Indeed. We may not need more lawsuits, but it's preferable to more sexism.

[Dieval]

Quote by: ironeagle Yes but a lawsuit is not frivelous when it's against a company that has been purposley discriminating against an employee based soley on gender, or race or religion.

You (wrongly) assume that every lawsuit filed for sexual discrimination will be valid. I'm not saying people aren't justified in suing companies for discrimination. I just see this as opening the door to even MORE frivolous lawsuits.

Quote by: ironeagle What else would you have them do? You could fine them but then the victim gets nothing, or jail them and again the victim gets nothing and on top of the nothing they would get the tax payers would have to pay for their encarceration. Since when is it wrong to win civil suits against people who steal, and that's what a company does to an employee when they discriminate like that, steal from them.

Again, I don't think valid lawsuits are the problem.

[Rainbow]

President Barack Obama signed his first bill into law on Thursday, handing his labor and women's rights backers a victory by reversing a 2007 Supreme Court decision that made it harder to sue for pay discrimination.

I like that :-)
(He delivered what he had promised during his campaign.)

[ironeagle]

Quote by: Dieval You (wrongly) assume that every lawsuit filed for sexual discrimination will be valid. I'm not saying people aren't justified in suing companies for discrimination. I just see this as opening the door to even MORE frivolous lawsuits. Again, I don't think valid lawsuits are the problem.

Yes but this is why the plaintif in the case has a burden of proof to show that they indeed where discriminated against, if they don't meet that burden they loose and eat the court costs. If the bruden of proof is met the defendant is guilty, it's not really much of a challenge I'd say.

[mariana-pl]

Quote by: Dieval I believe he's trying to do the right thing here, but I do agree with the "Some Republicans and business leaders" that this could very well open the flood gates for lawsuits..... we all know that we need more lawsuits in the world...

Oh, yeah, let's keep discrimination! Anything is better than lawsuits!!!

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor Equal pay has been the law since 1963. This is an attempt by the legislative and executive branches to overturn a Supreme Court decision - something neither branch has the constitutional authority to do.

Are you really making this argument or are you trying to bait the "homosexual marriage supporters" into what you believe will be a hypocritical stance? It just seems to me you have been taking exactly the opposite side in other threads. And just so you know, the stance we supporters take is this...it is a higher courts job to judge, first the Constitutionality of a law, and then the equal application of the law, and then the letter of the laws application. It is the legislative branches duty to pass laws that solve the issue at law they are attempting to address in a Constitutional way. Neither this law, nor the Court rendering a law void because it is unconstitutional, violate that consistent stance.

[mariana-pl]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Are you really making this argument or are you trying to bait the "homosexual marriage supporters" into what you believe will be a hypocritical stance? It just seems to me you have been taking exactly the opposite side in other threads. And just so you know, the stance we supporters take is this...it is a higher courts job to judge, first the Constitutionality of a law, and then the equal application of the law, and then the letter of the laws application. It is the legislative branches duty to pass laws that solve the issue at law they are attempting to address in a Constitutional way. Neither this law, nor the Court rendering a law void because it is unconstitutional, violate that consistent stance.

I believe he is trying to bait anyone who takes it into a fight! Dont take it LOL!

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Chancellor Equal pay has been the law since 1963. This is an attempt by the legislative and executive branches to overturn a Supreme Court decision - something neither branch has the constitutional authority to do.

Huh? Of course they do. Congress can pass any law it likes so long as it's Constitutional. The Court made their prior ruling on the basis of the old law, not on the basis of the Constitution. Therefore, the law (that the Court applied in deciding the case) can be changed at any time.

Quote by: Dieval You (wrongly) assume that every lawsuit filed for sexual discrimination will be valid. I'm not saying people aren't justified in suing companies for discrimination. I just see this as opening the door to even MORE frivolous lawsuits. Again, I don't think valid lawsuits are the problem.

You wrongly assume that you know what is going on here.

All the law did was change the timeframe in which a suit can be filed. It changed it from "within 180 days of the FIRST discriminatory paycheck" to "within 180 days of the LAST discriminatory paycheck".

Please explain precisely to me how a structural change in the statute of limitations for a particular type of claim encourages "frivolous" lawsuits.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Please explain precisely to me how a structural change in the statute of limitations for a particular type of claim encourages "frivolous" lawsuits.

Maybe he meant : filing court papers ?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Eika35 The Legislative branch can come up with a Constitutional law that can be signed by the Executive branch. It doesn't overrule the Supreme Court, but does change the law.

But this law is not constitutional and it does overturn the Supreme Court decision that someone must act within a specified time period (and that this time period started with the first discovery of the alleged violation of the law). There is no constitutional authority for Congress to dictate to private employers that they must pay everyone in the same job exactly the same.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Are you really making this argument or are you trying to bait the "homosexual marriage supporters" into what you believe will be a hypocritical stance?

Homosexual marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Besides, government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely.

It just seems to me you have been taking exactly the opposite side in other threads.

My position is that government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely.

And just so you know, the stance we supporters take is this...it is a higher courts job to judge, first the Constitutionality of a law,

Let's start with the law in question being unconstitutional because there is no authority under Article I for Congress to dictate to private employers that they must pay everyone in the same position the same amount of money.

and then the equal application of the law,

No, the 14th Amendment guarantees the equal protection of the laws not the equal application of the laws - but the laws themselves have to be constitutional.

and then the letter of the laws application.

Where is this found in Article III of the Constitution? What about the spirit of the law?

It is the legislative branches duty to pass laws that solve the issue at law they are attempting to address in a Constitutional way.

No, Article I only gives Congress the authority to pass the laws necessary for the federal government to carry out the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Neither this law, nor the Court rendering a law void because it is unconstitutional, violate that consistent stance.

But the stance is wrong for the reasons indicated above.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Huh? Of course they do. Congress can pass any law it likes so long as it's Constitutional. The Court made their prior ruling on the basis of the old law, not on the basis of the Constitution. Therefore, the law (that the Court applied in deciding the case) can be changed at any time.

The effect of the Supreme Court decision was to state that alleged victims of disparate pay must file their claims within the period allowed by statute and Congress does not have the constitutional authority to reverse a Supreme Court decision. As for your statement, "Congress can pass any law it likes so long as it's constitutional," Article I only gives Congress the power to pass those laws necessary for the federal government to carry out the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Chancellor But this law is not constitutional and it does overturn the Supreme Court decision that someone must act within a specified time period (and that this time period started with the first discovery of the alleged violation of the law). There is no constitutional authority for Congress to dictate to private employers that they must pay everyone in the same job exactly the same.

Regardless of the Constitutionality of the equal pay law, it is unquestionable that Congress has the authority to set and change, at their will, the various statutes of limitations for civil actions in federal courts.

That is all this law does. As a result, it is 100% Constitutional.

The underlying law requiring equal pay is not what was changed here.

[ironeagle]

Actually constitutionally a person can pay anyone what ever they want without cause however what they cannot do is base that pay on protected statuses, example if I want to pay one employee $10.00 but i need a second employee, say I can't afford to pay employee number two that much so I can only pay that person $7.00 an hour, it's not illegal however if I decided to differ pay based on race, gender, religion etc that would be illegal. Also the extended time frame for the suits has not actually been passed in congress yet.