I wanted to write about this days ago when the supreme court decision came down, but in a way I was just too depressed.
In case you didn't know-- The Supreme Court ruled against a Goodyear employee, Lily Ledbetter who earned thousands of dollars less than her male counterparts (she was making $45,000 a year, $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor).
Big shocker. The Justices who voted against this woman were: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. AKA: Huge male, conservative-type buttholes.
Our ONE woman justice, Ruth Ginsburg said in court Tuesday:
“In our view, this court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.”
Ginsburg also points out the impossible fate this woman faced. She coudl sue early and probably lose, or wait until the evidence is strong enough to win and be told she sued too late.
Debra Friedman, a lawyer with the Cozen O’Connor law firm who represents management, said Ginsburg put her finger on a problem for women and others who are covered by civil rights law. “Pay discrimination is difficult at times to discover until it’s too late,”
An example perfectly illustrated by this case! Because Lily Ledbetter’s pay started out comparable to what men were earning but slipped over time.
The decision “reveals a lack of appreciation for the real-world challenges that women have to face every day in the workplace,” said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families. “If employers can keep the discrimination hidden for a period of time, they can continue to discriminate without being held accountable.”
Seriously though, read Dakota Women's take on it. It made my day.
2 comments:
Thank you! The decision seemed too ridiculous for me to try to address it in any serious manner.
What you are asking for from the supreme court is judicial activism. The law says you have to report this type of crime within 180 days. This lady waited 15 years. The supreme court justices who actually abide by their oath to uphold the law voted one way and the other supreme court justices who decided they could make up new laws from the bench ruled another.
Your beef is not with the supreme court it is with congress, they could pass a law that changes this and they could even make it retroactive so that it would apply to this woman.
If the supreme court had sided with that woman then what the heck would be the use in having laws? Just send a case to court and depending on what judge you get, you get what he/she thinks is fair whether anyone else thinks so or not. The people would have no say in what laws we have.
How can you support a supreme court justice who ruled in direct contradiction to an unambiguous law?
That lady may have gotten screwed paywise and maybe the attention could get the law changed. That would be a positive outcome from this. Many times the supreme court has ruled on a case and in the opinion they state that congress needs to clarify the law, or that their hands were tied by the way that the law was written resulting in a ruling that was unfair. This is the way to handle these types of things not to just thumb your nose at what the house, senate and president put into law. It is not possible in our system but I think she should be fired and disbarred.
Now pretend you are a supreme court justice who is going to cast the deciding vote on this matter. If you vote in favor of the lady you open the door for lawsuits going back how far? What would be the result? Could our economy stand the strain of every woman suing who worked during WWII as steel workers while the men were off fighting the war because they did not get union scale? How many businesses would have to just file bankruptcy and liquidate? Do you consider the consequences of your actions or do you just vote with your heart and to hell with the rest of the world?
Post a Comment