Date: 2007-07-30
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker. discrimination is anathema to everything this country stands for. It is anathema to the promise that is America. Regrettably. the recent Supreme Courts recent Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision threatens to turn back the clock on the progress we have made since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 more than 40. years ago. The Supreme Courts decision in Ledbetter severely restricts the right of employees to challenge pay discrimination. It ignores the realities of the workplace. prior precedent. and the clear intent of Congress. Justice Ginsburgs dissent in this narrowly divided 54 decision called on Congress to reverse this decision. and that is what we are here to do today. Lilly. Ledbetter. the plaintiff in this case. worked for Goodyear for over 19 years. When she retired as a supervisor in 1998. she discovered that her salary was 20 percent lower than that of the lowestpaid male supervisor. Not only was Ms. Ledbetter -earnings nearly $400 a month less than her male colleagues. she also retired. obviously. with a substantially smaller pension. A jury found that Goodyear discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter. and she was awarded $3.8 million in back pay and damages. This amount was reduced to the $360.000 damage cap in title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Despite the jurys finding. the Supreme Court decided that While Goodyear discriminated against Ms.. Ledbetter. and it is important that the Members understand that that is what the jurys determination was. they decided that her claim was made too late. Not that she was wrong. not that Goodyear was right. Her claim simply came too late. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires an employee to file an EEOC. charge within 180 days of unlawful employment practices. Ms. Ledbetter filed within 180 days. as required. of receiving the discriminatory pay from Goodyear. In fact. she filed as soon as she found out that she was receiving discriminatory pay. She found out thanks to an anonymous note left in her mailbox. But a slim majority of the Supreme Court found that. because Ms. Ledbetter did not file within 180 days of the discriminatory decision to write those discriminatory paychecks that she received for many. many years. her time had run out. She could not recover anything from Goodyear. The majoritys decision is absurd and entirely shuns the reason in order to satisfy this ideological agenda. H.R. 2831. the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. is narrowly tailored and designed to restore the law on pay discrimination as it was before the Supreme Courts decision. the law as it was for some 35 years. the law as it was reaffirmed in circuit court after circuit court. as it was affirmed by the Congress of the United States. This bill restores the law so that the 180day statute of limitations clock runs when a discriminatory pay decision or practice is adopted. when a person becomes subject to the pay decision or practice. or when a person is affected by the pay decision or practice. including whenever she receives a discriminatory paycheck. In other words. every discriminatory paycheck is a violation of the act. That is as the law was for these many. many years. That is what we seek to do. The bill makes it clear that a victim of pay discrimination is entitled to a full 2 years of back pay. That is as the law currently is. You are entitled to re= cover up to 2 years back pay under title VII. The bill ensures that these simple refbrms extend to the Age Discrimination and Employment Act. the Americans with Disabilities Act. and the Rehabilitation Act. H.R. 2831 restores the law to what it was for years before this recent Supreme Court decision in the Ledbetter case. Circuit court after circuit courts have held that the receipt of a discriminatory paycheck is a new violation of the law. Lilly Ledbetter received her last discriminatory paycheck. She was then informed about it. and she filed within 180 days. Thats what the law was. thats what she did. and then this.Supreme Court decided somehow that she wasnt within her rights and that her claim came too late.