Comments on: President Set to Sign Ledbetter Act http://manpowerblogs.com/toth/2009/01/28/president-set-to-sign-ledbetter-act/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:31:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Mark Toth http://manpowerblogs.com/toth/2009/01/28/president-set-to-sign-ledbetter-act/comment-page-1/#comment-16370 Mark Toth Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:15:50 +0000 http://manpowerblogs.com/toth/?p=1833#comment-16370 Thanks for the deep thoughts, Jason. I just posted a response to your comments regarding the President's signing of the Act (today's post). Thanks for the deep thoughts, Jason. I just posted a response to your comments regarding the President’s signing of the Act (today’s post).

]]> By: Jason Lopez http://manpowerblogs.com/toth/2009/01/28/president-set-to-sign-ledbetter-act/comment-page-1/#comment-16303 Jason Lopez Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:52:48 +0000 http://manpowerblogs.com/toth/?p=1833#comment-16303 In the particular case that prompted this bill, the plaintiff didn't even bring her complaint until after the supervisor whom the law suit addressed had died. It is also worth mentioning that the plaintiff didn't even allege that any discrimination had taken place in the previous decade. Her attorneys instead argued that a pay discrepancy in the 1980's, because it was not rectified, resulted in continued discrimination each time she received a paycheck. Hence, Lilly Ledbetter thought it appropriate to file EEOC charges in July 1998 and then a formal lawsuit in November, the month of her retirement. The 11th Circuit Court that overturned her favorable ruling reached the conclusion that the plaintiff should have filed her lawsuit within 180 days of becoming aware of the pay discrepancy and since she didn't, the statute of limitations had passed. They, I think fairly, concluded that once that supervisor had left the company, it was reasonable to conclude that the pay discrepancy was NOT itentional. In my opinion there are two issues at stake here: 1. At what point is a delay in filing so damaging to the preservation of evidence that it becomes impossible to defend oneself against a discrimination claim? and 2. Is the retroactive nature of this bill contrary to the spirit of the Ex Post Facto Clause of our Constitution? (I know that it doesn't apply to civil proceedings, hence the phrase "spirit of".) Something to think about... In the particular case that prompted this bill, the plaintiff didn’t even bring her complaint until after the supervisor whom the law suit addressed had died. It is also worth mentioning that the plaintiff didn’t even allege that any discrimination had taken place in the previous decade. Her attorneys instead argued that a pay discrepancy in the 1980′s, because it was not rectified, resulted in continued discrimination each time she received a paycheck. Hence, Lilly Ledbetter thought it appropriate to file EEOC charges in July 1998 and then a formal lawsuit in November, the month of her retirement.

The 11th Circuit Court that overturned her favorable ruling reached the conclusion that the plaintiff should have filed her lawsuit within 180 days of becoming aware of the pay discrepancy and since she didn’t, the statute of limitations had passed. They, I think fairly, concluded that once that supervisor had left the company, it was reasonable to conclude that the pay discrepancy was NOT itentional. In my opinion there are two issues at stake here: 1. At what point is a delay in filing so damaging to the preservation of evidence that it becomes impossible to defend oneself against a discrimination claim? and 2. Is the retroactive nature of this bill contrary to the spirit of the Ex Post Facto Clause of our Constitution? (I know that it doesn’t apply to civil proceedings, hence the phrase “spirit of”.) Something to think about…

]]>