Bush Supreme Court appointees act like major fuckwads

[wolveraptor]

Justices’ Ruling Limits Suits on Pay Disparity
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: May 30, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 29 — The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for many workers to sue their employers for discrimination in pay, insisting in a 5-to-4 decision on a tight time frame to file such cases. The dissenters said the ruling ignored workplace realities.

Times Topics: Supreme CourtThe decision came in a case involving a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., the only woman among 16 men at the same management level, who was paid less than any of her colleagues, including those with less seniority. She learned that fact late in a career of nearly 20 years — too late, according to the Supreme Court’s majority.

The court held on Tuesday that employees may not bring suit under the principal federal anti-discrimination law unless they have filed a formal complaint with a federal agency within 180 days after their pay was set. The timeline applies, according to the decision, even if the effects of the initial discriminatory act were not immediately apparent to the worker and even if they continue to the present day.

From 2001 to 2006, workers brought nearly 40,000 pay discrimination cases. Many such cases are likely to be barred by the court’s interpretation of the requirement in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that employees make their charge within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”

Workplace experts said the ruling would have broad ramifications and would narrow the legal options of many employees.

In an opinion by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the majority rejected the view of the federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that each paycheck that reflects the initial discrimination is itself a discriminatory act that resets the clock on the 180-day period, under a rule known as “paycheck accrual.”

“Current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination,” Justice Alito said in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas once headed the employment commission, the chief enforcer of workers’ rights under the statute at issue in this case, usually referred to simply as Title VII.

Under its longstanding interpretation of the statute, the commission actively supported the plaintiff, Lilly M. Ledbetter, in the lower courts. But after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last June, the Bush administration disavowed the agency’s position and filed a brief on the side of the employer.

In a vigorous dissenting opinion that she read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the majority opinion “overlooks common characteristics of pay discrimination.” She said that given the secrecy in most workplaces about salaries, many employees would have no idea within 180 days that they had received a lower raise than others.

An initial disparity, even if known to the employee, might be small, Justice Ginsburg said, leading an employee, particularly a woman or a member of a minority group “trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment” to avoid “making waves.” Justice Ginsburg noted that even a small differential “will expand exponentially over an employee’s working life if raises are set as a percentage of prior pay.”

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer joined the dissent.

Ms. Ledbetter’s salary was initially the same as that of her male colleagues. But over time, as she received smaller raises, a substantial disparity grew. By the time she brought suit in 1998, her salary fell short by as much as 40 percent; she was making $3,727 a month, while the lowest-paid man was making $4,286.

A jury in Federal District Court in Birmingham, Ala., awarded her more than $3 million in back pay and compensatory and punitive damages, which the trial judge reduced to $360,000. But the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, erased the verdict entirely, ruling that because Ms. Ledbetter could not show that she was the victim of intentional discrimination during the 180 days before she filed her complaint, she had not suffered an “unlawful employment practice” to which Title VII applied.

Several other federal appeals courts had accepted the employment commission’s more relaxed view of the 180-day requirement. The justices accepted Ms. Ledbetter’s appeal, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, No. 05-1074, to resolve the conflict.

Title VII’s prohibition of workplace discrimination applies not just to pay but also to specific actions like refusal to hire or promote, denial of a desired transfer and dismissal. Justice Ginsburg argued in her dissenting opinion that while these “singular discrete acts” are readily apparent to an employee who can then make a timely complaint, pay discrimination often presents a more ambiguous picture. She said the court should treat a pay claim as it treated a claim for a “hostile work environment” in a 2002 decision, permitting a charge to be filed “based on the cumulative effect of individual acts.”

In response, Justice Alito dismissed this as a “policy argument” with “no support in the statute.”

As with an abortion ruling last month, this decision showed the impact of Justice Alito’s presence on the court. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, whom he succeeded, would almost certainly have voted the other way, bringing the opposite outcome.

The impact of the decision on women may be somewhat limited by the availability of another federal law against sex discrimination in the workplace, the Equal Pay Act, which does not contain the 180-day requirement. Ms. Ledbetter initially included an Equal Pay Act complaint, but did not pursue it. That law has additional procedural hurdles and a low damage cap that excludes punitive damages. It does not cover discrimination on the basis of race or Title VII’s other protected categories.

In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg invited Congress to overturn the decision, as it did 15 years ago with a series of Supreme Court rulings on civil rights. “Once again, the ball is in Congress’s court,” she said. Within hours, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is seeking the Democratic nomination, announced her intention to submit such a bill.

To summarize, you must now sue within 180 days of the first paycheck issued to you that shows a wage disparity, or you're fucked. I seriously don't know if that woman's employer ever gave her an equalizing raise or not. He could still be pulling the same shit. Unbelievable bullshit.

[K. A. Pital]

So, if you find out you're getting less somewhere down the road and 180 days have passed, you're fucked.

And who is this Alito guy?

[SirNitram]

So, if you find out you're getting less somewhere down the road and 180 days have passed, you're fucked.

And who is this Alito guy?

The guy who was sooooo moderate that the Democrats absolutely had to stop jamming up the works and filibustering him. The guy whose conservative history and previous positions would mellow out once on the bench.

So said the Very Serious People who somehow shape political discourse here.

[Patrick Degan]

This is without a doubt the worst Supreme Court since the one which handed down the Plessy decision.

Just another example of how the Bush family is a curse upon this land.

[wolveraptor]

Can you even demand to know your coworker's wages? This woman, I hear from NPR, only found out that she was suffering from pay discrimination when she first filed a lawsuit about a hostile work environment (or something to that effect). She got the info from anonymous source, if I remember correctly.

[Glocksman]

To summarize, you must now sue within 180 days of the first paycheck issued to you that shows a wage disparity, or you're fucked. I seriously don't know if that woman's employer ever gave her an equalizing raise or not. He could still be pulling the same shit. Unbelievable bullshit.

On its face, the ruling is totally consistent with the wording of the law as the decision to be discriminatory was made with that first check, not subsequent ones and the law is clear on the time limits involved.

This explains why the 4 conservative justices ruled as they did, and I guess the reasoning was persuasive to the 'swing justice' (Kennedy) as well.

The counterarguments are that she has no way of knowing the discrimination existed until after the time had passed and that each separate check contributed to a cumulative series of individual events that added up to an illegal situation, such as instances of sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment.
These are perfectly valid arguments, and frankly in this instance I tend to side with the minority on the court, because Congress's clear intent in the law was to prevent such incidents from occurring, the majority's extremely narrow reading of the statute itself while ignoring the longstanding precedents Ginsburg outlines in her dissent notwithstanding.

Speaking of Ginsburg, Congress should act on her call to amend the law to remove the 180 day limit in pay cases.

[Glocksman]

Can you even demand to know your coworker's wages? This woman, I hear from NPR, only found out that she was suffering from pay discrimination when she first filed a lawsuit about a hostile work environment (or something to that effect). She got the info from anonymous source, if I remember correctly.

Where I work, the unionized rank and file such as myself are free to do so.
However, I've been told by more than one supervisor that the company will discipline managers and front office secretary types if they get caught doing so.

[Durandal]

Can you even demand to know your coworker's wages? This woman, I hear from NPR, only found out that she was suffering from pay discrimination when she first filed a lawsuit about a hostile work environment (or something to that effect). She got the info from anonymous source, if I remember correctly.

If you can, I'd be highly surprised. Sometimes, an employee's direct report will have access to his salary information, but it's generally considered incredibly bad form to look it up, much less tell other people about it.

Given the workplace taboo on sharing your salary with your co-workers, this decision is incredibly moronic. But from a purely legalistic standpoint, this hostile work environment was clearly as on-going crime, since co-workers continued to get raises and promotions over her.

[wolveraptor]

I almost feel angry at Sandra Day O'Connor for retiring. I mean, obviously I can't judge her for wanting to do so. I have no idea what it's like. But did she have to do it when Shitty McAssholepants was in office? I hope you're happy now, woman. Honestly, what if Hillary's rectifying bill doesn't pass? The democrats have a slim majority, and some of them ran on rather conservative platforms.

[CmdrWilkens]

Generally speaking (and labor laws will vary) non-emempt hourly employees should be free to discuss pay and benifits amongst themselves. It is a matter on which valid complaint can be made to the NLRB by a union attempting to force a unionization vote in a given workplace.

[Anguirus]

Ginsburg's been doing a lot of dissenting recently. She must be about ready to spit nails at her new colleagues.

[Edi]

I'm not surprised in the least at another ruling from the Bush SCOTUS that fucks ordinary people over. It takes some very impressive reading of the statutes to conclude that they can only be violated once for pay issues.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that whenever Bush makes any nomination, incompetence of the candidate should be the default assumption unless proven otherwise.

[K. A. Pital]

Justice Alito response in plain speech: "Workplace realities"? Know your place, dirty peons!

Though, given the fact that this fucker is an opponent of Roe v. Wade and abortion rights, not a big surprise that he acts like a major ass in issues of labour rights too.

[Darth Wong]

What's the rationale behind the 180 day limitation in the first place? Just trying to cut down the number of discrimination suits with no regard for merit? Pay discrimination is not the sort of thing where a statute of limitations should apply because of reliance on bad memories and eyewitness testimony; a lawsuit can be launched based on records which (by law) must be kept by the company for many years.

[Patrick Degan]

I almost feel angry at Sandra Day O'Connor for retiring. I mean, obviously I can't judge her for wanting to do so. I have no idea what it's like. But did she have to do it when Shitty McAssholepants was in office?

Remember? She helped put Shitty McAssholepants in office in the first place.

[Tsyroc]

Where I work it is specifically against the company rules for employees to discuss their pay/salary with other employees. Prohibiting this is supposed to be for morale reasons. Which is technically true because whenever anyone finds out that the lazy ass scumwad brown noser is making a bunch more than they are it's going to be a problem.

[wolveraptor]

What's the rationale behind the 180 day limitation in the first place? Just trying to cut down the number of discrimination suits with no regard for merit? Pay discrimination is not the sort of thing where a statute of limitations should apply because of reliance on bad memories and eyewitness testimony; a lawsuit can be launched based on records which (by law) must be kept by the company for many years.

The 180 day discrimination rule was part of Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. At the time, I think it was instated to protect employers who, long before the passing of the act, were making discriminatory employment choices. It was essentially applying the ex post facto legal principle to the Civil Rights Act. However, only an asshole can argue that in Ms. Ledbetter's case, the discriminatory actions were more than 180 days in the past, and that each new paycheck or raise is not in and of itself indicative of sexism.