Lilly Ledbetter
I’m not sure I’ve blogged about Lilly Ledbetter’s case before, and if I have I haven’t done so very much, but watching her convention talk was a stark reminder of exactly how absurd the Supreme Court ruling that made her famous was. If you didn’t hear her talk, the point is that she worked for many years at Goodyear Tire. One day, she found persuasive evidence that she’d been the victim of illegal wage discrimination on account of being a woman. She sued. She won before a jury. But after a series of appeals a 5-4 Supreme Court decision let Goodyear off the hook on the theory that her suit had been filed too late — she needed, they said, to have filed her claim within 180 days of the first instance of illegal discrimination even though she wasn’t aware that it was occurring at the time. As The Los Angeles Times editorialized back in April:
As a narrow reading of the law, that’s all well and good. But as a prescription for redressing harm — the intent, after all, of anti-discrimination law — the court’s approach is impossibly binding. Most cases of discrimination, including the one before the court in Ledbetter, are difficult to discern at once, for the simple reason that most discrimination is covert. In the case of Lilly Ledbetter, a jury found that her employers had unfairly paid her less than male colleagues over a period of years. When Ledbetter discovered the disparity, she sued, but it was years after the initial discrimination, so five justices of the Supreme Court stood on a sterile legal principle in order to deny justice.
At any rate, even if you accept the conservative justices’ theory that their perverse reading of the existing law is correct, that points to the need to change the law. Which is exactly what their was a move to do in congress, but it’s been filibustered by the Senate Republicans and so, basically, if you want to get away with illegal discrimination you just need to make sure you can cover it up for at least 180 days.
Ledbetter’s not a political professional, but her story’s pretty compelling and important and one kind of wonders why so many Senate Republicans think it’s so important to help companies get away with illegal discrimination. Or as Jonah Goldberg put it:
Wow, she was even worse than Sebelius. Tootsie with a southern accent. I burst into laughter when they started playing “I’m so excited” after she finished.
I like that stuff so much better than Bill Kristol’s fake feminism.
54 Responses to “Lilly Ledbetter”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 26th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Doughy Pantload is the “man” who wrote:
“The White Man is the Jew of Liberal Fascism”
Do you really expect any better from that cocksucker?
August 26th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Isn’t that a good case for the legislature to improve the law so as not to be ridiculous?
August 26th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
“… she needed, they said, to have filed her claim within 180 days of the first instance of illegal discrimination …”
According to wikipedia “the first” is wrong and should be “some”.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
The Ledbetter case, and the Republican filibuster of Congress’ attempt to overturn it, is yet another clear indication that the Republican party hates women. It’s all of a piece with John McCain calling his wife, the one who provides the unlimited riches to support his pampered lifestyle and his political career, a c*nt. I don’t understand why any woman would vote for them.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Can anyone explain why anyone would give any credence to any topic Goldberg opines on. He and his kind are the evidence of the how low the lowest common denominator has become in our discourse. Not a fan of Buckley, but just imagine his horror at the spawn he sent forth.
Can we just starve them all of any comment or tweak and leave it to Media Matters to catalog their self immolation. Let’s go on and actually discuss how we will build the policies of the future that will ensure Lilly Ledbetter and aall other victims of injustice will have their day in court UPHELD.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
picky I know, but there is not their.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
No wonder Jonah doesn’t have comments. Even his fans would be ashamed of him for that cheap shot.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I followed this case with interest and am just profoundly baffled by the final decision.
The 180 day limitation is surely intended to limit the relief provided to the person who has suffered discriminations to half a years wages. For example, if a court finds that a worker has been denied $1000/month salary relative to her coworkers then they might be entitled to a six month retroactive pay hike and future paychecks at the new rate. Damages could be added on top of this. But, the employer would not be on the hook for fifteen years back wages.
The notion that a complaint must be issued within 180 days of the pay raise is just absurd. An employer can secure themselves from liability for wage discrimination simply by never giving any additional pay increases to those who have been discriminated against already!
August 26th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
“The notion that a complaint must be issued within 180 days of the pay raise is just absurd. An employer can secure themselves from liability for wage discrimination simply by never giving any additional pay increases to those who have been discriminated against already!”
This is wrong. A decision not to grant a raise is just as actionable as a decision to grant a small raise.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I think Jonah’s line is refreshing. At least he’s honest.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Tootsie with a southern accent.
And in case anyone didn’t catch the full nastiness of this part, he’s saying she looks like a drag queen.
Ladies and gentlemen, LA Times columnist Jonah Goldberg!
August 26th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
God, that’s even worse than talking about Balzac’s bon mots. Hoffman’s character in Tootsie HAD a southern accent. Fucking moron.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Not quite bh-A Jeiwsh Drag Queen.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
The important question is whether or not this Ledbetter woman has ever eaten arugula, because that would allow the champion of the common man Republican Party and its worshipers to tell us if she was elitist or not.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
I’ve always wondered about the obsession with arugula as somehow elitist — then I discovered it’s what you proles call “rocket.”
August 26th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Ah, Doughy Pantload, a legacy admission at a woman’s college.
Or, as Roy Edroso puts it, that line of his was the stupidest thing ever written, and will remain so until Goldberg writes something else.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Mr. Pantload seems forget that Tootsie — the character of Dorothy Michaels — DOES have a southern accent. So, the only thing he is trying to say is that he thinks she looks like Dustin Hoffman in a wig. Unless, he is actually trying to compliment her for her strong feminist stance that is reminiscent of the character in the movie…
ha. hahahahahahahahah.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Tell Doughbob Loadpants to show up at the DNC in 2012. I bet he doesn’t have the guts.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Is it just me, or did Goldberg become a much bigger dick since his book came out? I remember what he said during Katrina, but he seems to have gotten a lot nastier lately.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:52 am
This is why our host is in over his head on legal topics. Now, maybe the Supreme Court made the wrong call — maybe their decision on when the 180 starts was wrong. But there’s no attempt to even make that argument here. There’s just an argument that the outcome is unfair. Legal decisions aren’t about outcomes, they’re about applying the law. If the law required the complaint to be filed within 180 days, then yes, the law is an ass. But it’s Congress’s job to change it, not the court’s.
In other words, law is not politics. It’s close, but it’s not all the way there yet.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Too Many Steves,
You did notice the part where Matt said that even if the ocurt was correct the law should be re-written and the Republicans in the Senate are Filibustering it?
And they wonder why women don’t vote for them.
Rachel Maddow had a great point tonight, Joe Biden wrote the violence against women act, McCain voted against it.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:12 am
David B., McDonald’s is elitist now.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Do you know what women find hilarious? Pay discrimination!
The filibuster of the Ledbetter legislation in the Senate by Republicans is the best bludgeon that Democrats have in this election. Women are tokens in the Republican Party. What do John McCain and Mitch McConnell know about pay discrimination that Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins don’t know?
August 27th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Here is the SCOTUS oath:
“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
This group pay little attention to it, however.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I think Jonah’s line is refreshing. At least he’s honest.
So was Son of Sam. All honesty isn’t refreshing.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Oh, I can’t help it:
All honesty isn’t refreshing
I think you meant, “Not all honesty is refreshing.”
August 27th, 2008 at 10:24 am
My wife and I were flipping channels and ran across Ledbetter’s speech on PBS. Her immediate response was “please tell me this is saturday night live.” Nothing to do with content, which both of us are fully supportive of, but it was too painful to watch. Probably not the best choice for prime time…. We switched to MSNBC and gratefully watched Rachel Maddow rip Pat Buchanan a new one instead.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:42 am
that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich,
If you think that is justice, you are a sad person.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I think you meant, “Not all honesty is refreshing.”
It’s still early in the morning. I’m not sure what I meant.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Well, you’re wrong. When a statute is ambiguous, it is legitimate for the Courts to concern themselves with giving it a construction that works, and that effectuates the outcome Congress intended. There’s an historic tradition of Anglo-American courts doing this, dating back to the Middle Ages, but the “Federalist” jursipurdential theories now fashionable on the right regard it as somehow illicit.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
The problem is that the law did not specify that a suit had to be filed withing 180 days. The court just made up that number because they couldn’t find another excuse to rule in favor of the corporation that was in the wrong. I wonder how many Republican women that work for a living would feel if they actually knew the Republicans filibustered a bill to correct this injustice…
August 27th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I thought Ledbetter was great. It was a real travesty that they didn’t show it on the networks. But you’ve got to wonder why they played “I’m So Excited” afterward. I didn’t think it was funny, but it was certainly odd.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
The problem is that the law did not specify that a suit had to be filed withing 180 days. The court just made up that number because they couldn’t find another excuse to rule in favor of the corporation that was in the wrong.
Huh? Then please explain what paragraph (e) subhead (1) is referring to.
When a statute is ambiguous, it is legitimate for the Courts to concern themselves with giving it a construction that works, and that effectuates the outcome Congress intended.
There’s nothing particularly ambiguous about this law, it’s just bad law. What needs to happen here is Congress needs to change the provisions. This should be straightforward but the Republicans are being dicks about it.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Well, the subsection you cite says:
A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred
Which rather begs the question of when “the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred,” which of course is what the Ledbetter case was about. Before Ledbetter was decided by the Supreme Court, the general rule was that some kinds of discrimination are continuing, and that the 180-day period does not begin to run until the discrimination stops ocurring. That rule accords with common sense and the views of the congress that passed the statue, but you and your ilk (which admittedly includes 5 Supreme Court justices) think that result won’t do, and that 40 years of pay discrimination amounts to a single act of discrimination that occurred 40 years ago. You are wrong, of course.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Which rather begs the question of when “the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred,” which of course is what the Ledbetter case was about.
Sure, but the commenter to whom I was responding with the link (not you, rea) stated that the 180-days was made up out of whole cloth by the court. This is obviously false.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
That rule accords with common sense and the views of the congress that passed the statue, but you and your ilk (which admittedly includes 5 Supreme Court justices) think that result won’t do, and that 40 years of pay discrimination amounts to a single act of discrimination that occurred 40 years ago.
I don’t know who my “ilk” are, but I’m completely in support of Lilly Ledbetter receiving compensation for her discrimination. As I said, Republicans including McCain are being absurd in filibustering the necessary changes.
However, I’m even more in favor of the Supreme Court interpreting the law as it was written by Congress and signed into law by the President, without a view to outcomes.
December 14th, 2008 at 5:13 am
CUMBERLAND — Sam Perlozzo had to make a stop on his way home to Cumberland before he could help his daughter Mia with homestretch arrangements for her Saturday wedding. It would be a very beneficial stop for Perlozzo as, before
January 19th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 1st, 2009 at 7:01 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
March 11th, 2009 at 5:39 am
I want to say - thank you for this!
March 14th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:42 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 28th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Thats what I thought and you really helped me prove my point with this post. I cant wait to show my friend so he can see he was wrong. - Walter
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:39 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I want to say - thank you for this! viagra