Can somebody tell me again why Democrats and progressives continue to speak about the Supreme Court only within the framework of Roe vs. Wade?
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.The 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.
There’s a good chance the next president will be nominating at least two judges to the court, or possibly more that could end up altering the entire balance of the court. The Dems on the trail might think to mention that to folks. It’s important.
We’ve seen the perils of relying on the outside groups (Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way) and senators to do a competent job on this: one, two.
Whoever the major party NotRepublican candidate is, they really oughta make that a central piece of their campaign. In sound bite form, that might be something to the effect of: For the love of God, look at the gargoyles Republicans nominate!
Something wasn’t clear: Is the 180 day deadline after discovery, or after the incident?
It does make a difference…
“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.”
Sounds like 180 after you sign on the dotted line to me. Apparently the SCOTUS thinks everyone should be sure to run around doing impromptu salary surveys the second they get a gig.
Apparently the SCOTUS thinks everyone should be sure to run around doing impromptu salary surveys the second they get a gig.
Actually what SCOTUS thinks is that Congress wrote a shitty law and needs to change it.
Democrats have the majority. It shouldn’t be too difficult.
“Something wasn’t clear: Is the 180 day deadline after discovery, or after the incident?
It does make a difference…”
Yes it was clear. 180 days after the pay is set. So if you don’t find out for six months, you’re screwed.
To those claiming Congress wrote a “shitty” law, could you please explain what makes it so “shitty”? This isn’t snark - I’m curious.
Well, if the interpretation is as people are pointing out, that you have to file a claim 180 days from the date your pay is set, that’s a little extreme. It probably takes time and to determine that you’re being paid less to do the same job as people don’t often go around telling everybody their salaries. In addition, I’m guessing most people are surprised when they do find out.
Bill does make a good point when he says that the way law appears to be written, you’d have to start keeping tabs on everybody’s salary the day you’re hired in order to make any case.
Yes, blame congress for a loophole that was previously covered by previous rulings.
The plaitiff has other laws she can sue under. The civil rights act offered punitive damages.
Next question, if congress does fix the law, what are the odds that Bush might veto it?
Funny how with Alito and ROberts on board, it appears to me, just as many feared, that many of these judgment calls will go to the corporations. The COurt could just as easily have dealt with the underlying concept and substance of the suit, and not hidden behind a filing-deadline or standing technicality.
This might have gone down the same with O’Connor, a corporatist, still on the bench, but Oliver’s right: It’s time for these kind of decisions to start going to the little guys instead of the Corporations again.
Imagine where we’d be if the Warren court just said “hey Southern states, write better laws… but if you don’t, no need to worry, we won’t interfere with your institutionalized racism!”
Sundown, this wasn’t a constitutional issue, so your little quip is pointless.
CSS: Were you so desperate to make that comment that you didn’t notice the comment at May 30, 2007 11:40:00 AM?
What a maroon!
“CSS: Were you so desperate to make that comment that you didn’t notice the comment at May 30, 2007 11:40:00 AM?
What a maroon!”
Are you so desperate to make a comment that you had to complain about being corrected twice.
Mea culpa, CSS. Of course, you’re right and I’m wrong.
I don’t think so, Jay. Justices need not, and in fact should not, be simple robots. They need to do what is right. What they (the 5 in the majority) did was to approve of sexism.
“Something wasn’t clear: Is the 180 day deadline after discovery, or after the incident?
It does make a difference…”
Yes it was clear. 180 days after the pay is set. So if you don’t find out for six months, you’re screwed.
Besides, date of discovery is alot harder to prove than date of incident. Date of incident at least can be verified by bookkeeping
Zython: Date of discovery and “date you report it to somebody” are the same.
My question was, If you discover on Mar 1, that you were screwed on the previous Aug 1, when does the “180 - day clock” run?
Granted, you can’t let the claim sit around forever, or collect money due from twenty years ago, but 180 days isn’t much time to discover and confirm that someone’s getting more than you in some unfair way.
I don’t think so, Jay. Justices need not, and in fact should not, be simple robots. They need to do what is right. What they (the 5 in the majority) did was to approve of sexism.
It has nothing to do with right or wrong. The duty of a Supreme Court justice is to issue a ruling based upon their interpretation of a law or the constitution as it applies to legislation they are examining.
If the law is poorly written, or if a law violates constitutional principles, then they are duty bound to rule and provide the basis for their ruling. It would be a dereliction of a Justice’s duty to say, “Well I ruled this way because it was the right thing to do.”
It would be a dereliction of a Justice’s duty to say, “Well I ruled this way because it was the right thing to do.”
You mean like conservatives wanted the courts to do in the Schiavo case?
You’re right!
The argument for Ms. Ledbetter is over; Congress does indeed need to revisit the law and hopefully write it so that even the Roberts Court will treat average citizens fairly. For the rest of us, the point is that we are targets one way or another for the corporate and plutocratic shills running our government. All elections matter. This next election is a really big deal.
cosmotron circovarian porcellana tabla platinoid opulency heteromyidae dorts
7
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/3.html
5
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/4.html
18
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/1.html
16
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/11.html
8
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/9.html
17
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/5.html
10
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/6.html
12
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/15.html
7
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/2.html
14
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/13.html