At a time when college debt is increasing and the economy continues to decline, you may be interested to know that our government doesn’t care if your future employers cheat you on your paychecks.
Last week, Republican lawmakers killed a bill in the Senate that would have eliminated unreasonable and ridiculous restrictions on employees’ abilities to sue their employers for wage discrimination.
The bill was an attempt to remedy an injustice committed last year by five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
In May of 2007, the court ruled that Lilly M. Ledbetter, who had worked for a Goodyear tire plant for 20 years and had been paid less than all of her colleagues ““ including those with less experience ““ could not sue her former employer through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The reason: Ledbetter didn’t find out about the pay discrepancy until shortly before she was due to retire, she told The American Prospect in an interview, when a coworker left an anonymous note in her mailbox to tip her off.
Ledbetter’s complaint was that she was being denied raises because of unfair evaluations, but the Supreme Court rejected a lower court ruling that had granted her back pay and punitive damages because, according to the majority’s reasoning, Ledbetter had failed to file her complaint within 180 days of the discriminatory acts she alleged in her suit. The court conveniently ignored the fact that it is extremely difficult to complain about discrimination when one is unaware of it.
It’s not as if Ledbetter’s boss handed her paycheck to her and said, “You know, you’re getting paid a lot less than your coworkers because Goodyear likes to discriminate against women.”
Obviously Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the court’s opinion, has been out of the work force for too long. When I’m with my coworkers we chat about what we’ll be doing this weekend; We do not compare paychecks.
Furthermore, retirement benefits are usually based on an employee’s former salary. Any wage discrimination that Ledbetter experienced didn’t just occur a few years ago. It is happening at this very moment as she receives retirement benefits that are lower than those of her colleagues.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Congress to pass a law remedying the stifling restriction. To its credit, the House passed such a bill and then sent it on to the Senate, where it was filibustered by Republicans, which means it was prevented from going to the floor to be voted on.
In trying to justify his party’s position, Sen. John McCain and presumed Republican presidential nominee told the Associated Press, “I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation … opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems.”
It’s not that Sen. McCain wants women to be discriminated against in the workplace; he just thinks they shouldn’t be able to do anything about it.
The suggestion that allowing employees to sue for wage discrimination once they discover it will open up a floodgate of lawsuits is preposterous. The employment commission requires people to file complaints with their agency first and only pursues cases they investigate and feel are strongly supported by evidence.
This isn’t exactly suing McDonalds because you spilled coffee on yourself.
President Bush, not to be left out, also threatened to veto the bill if it should pass Congress.
Which brings us to the question: At a time when the economy is so bad the government is going to mail us checks after we file our taxes in hopes we go shopping, why do all three branches of our government so vehemently oppose allowing Americans to sue for pay discrimination once they find out about it? Business interests, perhaps. A naive belief that sexism, racism or religious discrimination no longer exists ““ and if it does, it occurs while whistles and sirens ring out and little signs that read, “you’re a victim of discrimination” begin to appear all around you. Or maybe it’s just apathy.
Whatever the reason, we must call and e-mail our senators immediately and urge them to not only vote for, but also at least vote on, the legislation. We can save ourselves, or our family or friends, from being put in such a position.
And when we’re voting for the next president, let’s consider who truly has our personal economic interests in mind.
If you have ever worked alongside Strickland, you can send her copies of your W-2s at kstrickland@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.