The Binder is a lie.

[AvalonXQ]

A distinction totally without a difference. It was that she discovered the income difference long, long after the first paycheck.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Ledbetter lost her suit because she waited too long after she learned of the pay discrepency to file her suit. It had nothing to do with the date of her first paycheck.

 

[RandFan]

I don't understand what you're saying.

Ledbetter lost her suit because she waited too long after she learned of the pay discrepency to file her suit. It had nothing to do with the date of her first paycheck.

Not true.

source The latter ruled in 2007 by a 5-4 majority vote that Ledbetter's complaint was time-barred because the discriminatory decisions relating to pay had been made more than 180 days prior to the date she filed her charge, as explained by Justice Samuel Alito.

There is nothing in the ruling about her waiting too long after she found out. The 180 days started the moment she was first discriminated against. That IS in the ruling.

 

[BenBurch]

RandFan is correct.

 

[RandFan]

Actually that is wrong, and Obama got it wrong in the debate. The reason Ledbetter's claim was disallowed was the limitation was based on when she first discovered the income difference, not when her first paycheck was issued.

Of course, all the fact-checkers continue to get this wrong.

I'm willing to reconsider this.

 

[BenBurch]

I'm willing to reconsider this.

From Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire_&_Rubber_Co.

"Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more."

By the EMPLOYER. Not Ms. Ledbetter.

The employer's decision was to pay her a discriminatory wage. She says that found out about the decision years later when the effect of the negative evaluation was understood.

The ruling was that the 180 statute had expired.

But it would be the same situation had she not even known about the negative evaluation. If I hire Jane at 80% of Joe, who does the same job and has the same qualifications, and Jane only finds out years later, Jane can do nothing about my intentional (even if it were documented!) discrimination.

 

[RandFan]

From Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire_&_Rubber_Co.

"Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more."

By the EMPLOYER. Not Ms. Ledbetter.

The employer's decision was to pay her a discriminatory wage. She says that found out about the decision years later when the effect of the negative evaluation was understood.

The ruling was that the 180 statute had expired.

But it would be the same situation had she not even known about the negative evaluation. If I hire Jane at 80% of Joe, who does the same job and has the same qualifications, and Jane only finds out years later, Jane can do nothing about my intentional (even if it were documented!) discrimination.

Thanks Ben, I was trying to verify the claims made in the post by Brainster. If the claims in that article can be verified then I would have a different opinion but I've not been able to do so. But we share the same understanding.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Not true.

There is nothing in the ruling about her waiting too long after she found out. The 180 days started the moment she was first discriminated against. That IS in the ruling.

You're right. Whether or not the discovery rule would have applied was left open in the case, because on the facts at evidence Ledbetter's suit would have been dismissed either way.

But that's what makes subsequent descriptions of the case inaccurate -- the discovery rule question was explicitly left open by the Court, so it is not clear that an employer could just keep their discrimination under wraps until the time ran out. That issue was not addressed either way.

 

[rdaneel]

You're right. Whether or not the discovery rule would have applied was left open in the case, because on the facts at evidence Ledbetter's suit would have been dismissed either way.

But that's what makes subsequent descriptions of the case inaccurate -- the discovery rule question was explicitly left open by the Court, so it is not clear that an employer could just keep their discrimination under wraps until the time ran out. That issue was not addressed either way.

Which goes to show why the Act was needed. The discovery rule seemed to leave things awfully vague. For one thing, discovering the discrimination doesn't necessarily mean you have enough proof that will hold up in court. It may take time to build a case that you feel confident in, and as noted in the Ginsburg Dissent the discrimination can happen in small increments over a large period of time.