Declaring that ending pay disparity is not just a women’s issue, President Barack Obama signed legislation Thursday that gives workers more time to take their pay discrimination cases to court.
Lilly Ledbetter, the Alabama woman whose story was the impetus behind the new law, stood alongside Obama as he signed the first bill of his presidency. Also in the East Room of the White House were labor, women’s, civil rights advocates and members of Congress for whom the bill was a priority.
“Equal pay is by no means just a women’s issue, it’s a family issue,” Obama said. “And in this economy, when so many folks are already working harder for less and struggling to get by, the last thing they can afford is losing part of each month’s paycheck to simple and plain discrimination.”
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act effectively nullifies a 2007 Supreme Court decision that denied Ledbetter an opportunity for redress.
Ledbetter, 70, has said she did not learn about the sizable discrepancy in pay between her and her male co-workers until near the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala. She sued, but the high court said in a 5-4 decision that she missed her chance to bring the action.
The court said a person must file a discrimination claim within 180 days of a company’s initial decision to pay a worker less than another doing the same job.
Under the new law, each new discriminatory paycheck would extend the statute of limitations for an additional 180 days. That was the interpretation before the Supreme Court was asked to step in.
The Bush White House and Senate Republicans blocked the bill in the last session of Congress. But Obama strongly supported it — he talked often about Ledbetter during the presidential campaign — and the Democratic-controlled Congress made it a priority in its opening weeks.
And this HOW many years after women’s suffrage, and Roe v. Wade?
This is WAY overdue.
True that….the fact that we had to do it shows we have not come that far after all, huh?
“That was the interpretation before the Supreme Court was asked to step in.”
You know, that fact is not one that was revealed by the conservative pundits. Not once did they say that the bill attempts to maintain the status quo. Instead they were painting it as a new way to screw companies by trial lawyers.