Business interests in the nation’s capital have lined up to oppose the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, painting it as some sort of electoral payback for labor unions.
That is an injustice to what is, in reality, legislation that would restore civil rights that had been unacceptably narrowed by a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
We hope the House, which is set to take up the legislation on Friday, moves it forward.
The issue springs from a lawsuit filed by Ledbetter, who had been a supervisor at an Alabama Goodyear Tire and Rubber plant for nearly two decades. Toward the end of her time at the plant, she learned she was being paid 40 percent less than some of her male peers.
Ledbetter proved to a jury she had been discriminated against and won a judgment ultimately set at $360,000.
The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which cast aside the judgment not on the merits of the case, but because justices said she hadn’t filed her claim in a timely manner.
This was not an ordinary argument about deadlines. The Supreme Court departed from precedent set by other federal courts and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in ruling that Ledbetter should have filed her action within 180 days of the last time her bosses made a discriminatory pay decision.
Given the secrecy in most workplaces about salaries, how would she have even known she was being paid less than men who were employed in similar jobs? The decision defies reality.
Getting a lesser raise isn’t as readily apparent as, say, being fired or losing out on a promotion.
The legislation that Congress will take up Friday would require federal pay-discrimination claims be filed within 180 days of the last paycheck that reflects a discriminatory salary decision.
The legislation, which was vetted during the last session of Congress but ultimately did not pass, has sparked heated reactions from business interests.
“It shows that labor won the election,” said John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, who was quoted in a Bloomberg News story. “There’s no sugar-coating that.”
We disagree. It’s not as if the Ledbetter Act is some huge “gimme” for labor unions across the country. This is no “card-check” bill, a measure that would allow unions to organize by having workers sign a card instead of in a secret ballot.
And we doubt the Ledbetter legislation would result in an onslaught of discrimination lawsuits. Bringing such an action in federal court would remain an expensive proposition with steep legal hurdles. These are difficult cases to prove.
What the Ledbetter Act would do is set a realistic deadline that gives people who believe they’ve suffered discrimination a chance to seek a remedy. That’s not pro-labor. It is merely pro-fairness.
