On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. In an Emerging Issues Analysis, N. Pete Lareau summarizes the facts and holding of the Supreme Court's
Ledbetter decision and examines the new law, what it is intended to accomplish, and some practical ramifications that may arise from its enactment. Following are excerpts from the Analysis:
In
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 1 the Supreme Court addressed an issue that had plagued it in the past -- whether and in what circumstances a Title VII plaintiff may state a claim for relief based on present day harm suffered as the result of the lingering effects of discriminatory acts that occurred outside of Title VII's limitations period. The Court held that a plaintiff who alleges that she is paid less today than her male colleagues solely because, during an earlier period of time (outside of Title VII''s limitations period), she was denied appropriate salary increases on account of her sex, does not state a claim cognizable under Title VII. More particularly, the Court held that each paycheck a plaintiff receives reflecting compensation that the plaintiff asserts is less than it would be but for past discrimination does not constitute an actionable wrong.
In an Expert Commentary posted shortly after that decision issued, 2 Peter Lareau, author of "NLRA: Law and Practice" and numerous other books and articles in the field of employment law, suggested that the decision might prompt Congress to "take yet another look at the breadth of its determination to eliminate discrimination in employment -- this time with respect to pay discrimination claims." This prediction proved accurate and, on January 22, 2009, two days after taking the oath of office, President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 ("LLFPA"), the stated purpose of which is "to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful . . . occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice . . . ." 3
the Supreme Court addressed an issue that had plagued it in the past -- whether and in what circumstances a Title VII plaintiff may state a claim for relief based on present day harm suffered as the result of the lingering effects of discriminatory acts that occurred outside of Title VII's limitations period. The Court held that a plaintiff who alleges that she is paid less today than her male colleagues solely because, during an earlier period of time (outside of Title VII''s limitations period), she was denied appropriate salary increases on account of her sex, does not state a claim cognizable under Title VII. More particularly, the Court held that each paycheck a plaintiff receives reflecting compensation that the plaintiff asserts is less than it would be but for past discrimination does not constitute an actionable wrong.In an Expert Commentary posted shortly after that decision issued, Peter Lareau, author of "NLRA: Law and Practice" and numerous other books and articles in the field of employment law, suggested that the decision might prompt Congress to "take yet another look at the breadth of its determination to eliminate discrimination in employment -- this time with respect to pay discrimination claims." This prediction proved accurate and, on January 22, 2009, two days after taking the oath of office, President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 ("LLFPA"), the stated purpose of which is "to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful . . . occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice . . . ."
***
The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
The law signed by President Obama on January 22, 2009, reverses the Court''s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., expressly stating:
The Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), significantly impairs statutory protections against discrimination in compensation that Congress established and that have been bedrock principles of American law for decades. The Ledbetter decision undermines those statutory protections by unduly restricting the time period in which victims of discrimination can challenge and recover for discriminatory compensation decisions or other practices, contrary to the intent of Congress. 15
The LLFPA establishes as the rule of law the position argued by the dissent, effectively restarting, with the issuance of each paycheck, the statute of limitations for each claim that present compensation would be more, but for past discrimination. Therefore, if an employee argues that a supervisor gave him a discriminatorily poor evaluation 20 years ago, as a result of which his present compensation is $100 less per week than it would have been had he not been so evaluated, the claim will be timely so long as filed with 180/300 days of the receipt of any current paycheck. Moreover, the LLFPA applies not only to direct compensation decisions but also to any "other practice" that "in whole or part" impacts "wages, benefits, or other compensation." 16
Its provisions are not limited to Title VII,…The LLFPA establishes as the rule of law the position argued by the dissent, effectively restarting, with the issuance of each paycheck, the statute of limitations for each claim that present compensation would be more, but for past discrimination. Therefore, if an employee argues that a supervisor gave him a discriminatorily poor evaluation 20 years ago, as a result of which his present compensation is $100 less per week than it would have been had he not been so evaluated, the claim will be timely so long as filed with 180/300 days of the receipt of any current paycheck. Moreover, the LLFPA applies not only to direct compensation decisions but also to any "other practice" that "in whole or part" impacts "wages, benefits, or other compensation." Its provisions are not limited to Title VII,…
n1 550 U.S. 618, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 6295 (2007).
n3 Preamble to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Pub. L. No. 111-2, 123 Stat. 5 (Jan. 29, 2009).
n15 LLFPA, Pub. L. No. 111-2, Section 2(1), 123 Stat. 5 (Jan. 29, 2009).
n16 LLFPA, Pub. L. No. 111-2, Section 3, 123 Stat. 5 (Jan. 29, 2009).
LexisNexis Related References
For complete discussion of issues related to the
Ledbetter case, see Larson, Employment Discrimination, Chapter 72, Chapter 140, and Chapter 157.
For Supreme Court briefs on
Ledbetter, see
2005 U.S. BRIEFS 1074 (subscription required).