DOCSLIB.ORG

Legislative Case Study: the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Legislative Case Study: the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 Research Paper: Legislative Case Study on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Kruttika Gopal GOVT-321: Congress and Legislative Behavior November 20, 2020 Gopal 1 The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a monumental piece of legislation that markedly addressed the gender pay gap in the United States. Established over ten years ago in 2009, the policy decision sent the message that unequal pay is not acceptable and prompted an explosion of initiatives aiming to reduce the gender pay gap across the country. The Ledbetter Act was a response to Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., a contentious Supreme Court case from ​ ​ 2007. The court case and ensuing legislation received a significant amount of media coverage and public attention, and when paired with the extensive implications it had for reducing wage discrimination and expanding gender equality, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 can be considered one of the most unforgettable measures of the Obama administration and the 111th United States Congress. In 2007, Lilly Ledbetter, a production supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama, sued Goodyear for gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She alleged that over the span of her nineteen-year career at Goodyear, the company had given her a lower salary and consistently given her “low rankings in annual performance-and-salary reviews and low raises relative to other employees” because of her 1 gender. ​ In the initial case, a jury decided in favor of Ledbetter and granted her over $3.5 million, ​ but a district judge later decreased this amount to $360,000. However, Goodyear appealed this to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, citing a provision of Title VII which “requires discrimination complaints to [be] made within 180 days of the employer's 2 discriminatory conduct.” ​ The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and ruled that ​ the jury can only examine evidence of discrimination in Ledbetter’s career as far back as the last annual salary review before the start of the 180-day limitations period. Ledbetter appealed this to 1 "Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company," Oyez, accessed November 17, 2020, ​ ​ https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-1074. 2 Ibid. Gopal 2 the Supreme Court, which ruled against her in a 5-4 majority vote on May 29th, 2007. The majority determined that Ledbetter's complaint was time-barred because the discriminatory decisions relating to pay had been made more than 180 days prior to the date she filed her 3 charge. ​ Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his concurring opinion that “current effects alone cannot ​ 4 breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination.” ​ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who voted in ​ favor of Ledbetter, wrote a strong dissenting opinion that expressed an interpretation of Title VII according to which the law runs from the date of any paycheck that contains an amount affected by a prior discriminatory pay decision, rather than complaints being time-barred by exactly 180 days. She stated that the majority ruling was “a cramped interpretation of Title VII, incompatible with the statute's broad remedial purpose” and considered it to be discordant with the realities of wage discrimination.5 ​ Justice Ginsburg’s strongly-worded dissent gained a significant amount of attention and spurred a robust public reaction. A plethora of organizations and activists began speaking out against the Supreme Court ruling, exclaiming that it was a penurious interpretation of Title VII that granted legitimacy to discriminatory practices. For example, Marcia Greenberger, the president of the National Women’s Law Center, said that Ginsburg’s marked dissent was a “clarion call to the American people that this slim majority of the court is headed in the wrong 6 direction.” ​ Women’s rights activists across the country were exasperated with what they ​ considered to be the court’s rollback of Title VII provisions. Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families, remarked that the decision “reveals a lack of 3 Ibid. 4 Ledbetter v. Goodyear, 550 U.S. 618 (2007). 5 Ibid. 6 Robert Barnes, “Over Ginsburg's Dissent, Court Limits Bias Suits,” The Washington Post, May 30, 2007, ​ ​ https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/29/AR2007052900740.html. Gopal 3 appreciation for the real-world challenges that women have to face every day in the workplace.”7 ​ The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AARP, the National Organization for Women, and other civil rights organizations sided with Ledbetter. They refuted the court’s decision, saying that employers would not suffer any consequences for recurring discrimination if they could rebuff allegations merely by “arguing that the deadline for complaining about the first episode had passed.”8 ​ Motivated by Justice Ginsburg’s dissidence and the reaction across the country, House Democrats swiftly reacted with a policy plan countering the court’s decision on June 12th, 2007. Their legislative approach, which was the first attempt at the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to resolve this controversy, clarifying that the 180-day window essentially resets with every paycheck that could have been impacted by an alleged discriminatory wage decision. The bill also applied its amendments to claims of compensation discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 in order to reduce unlawful 9 practices of discriminatory compensation across the board. ​ However, the sentiments expressed ​ by the House Democrats were not necessarily reflected in the rest of Congress or the country—the broader implications of contradicting both a Supreme Court ruling and amending ​ ​ the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made many people feel unsettled. Passing this bill was not going to be a simple task for the Democrats, and as will be seen, the fight over this legislation demonstrated the party polarization and divisions between the House and Senate. 7 “High Court Limits Pay-Discrimination Claims,” NBC News, May 29, 2007, ​ ​ https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18920357#.Ufi1bY2TgV0. 8 Ibid. 9 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, H.R.2831 (2007). Gopal 4 Opposing the bill was not a rare stance, and these adversaries were not silent. The opposition commonly cited potential abuse of the legislation as the main reason for not supporting it. Education and Labor Committee ranking member Howard McKeon (R-CA) claimed that the bill “invites more and costlier lawsuits” as even retiring employees could seek damages against a company led by executives who had nothing to do with the initial act of 10 discrimination. ​ A majority of Republicans felt that easing the time constraints would prompt far ​ too much litigation over very outdated cases. This view was echoed across the country, particularly by legal organizations. Robin Conrad, senior vice president of National Chamber Litigation Center, asserted that “[y]ou just cannot sit on your claims and decide to file a lawsuit 11 after things have festered over time.” ​ Opponents of the bill also commented on its provisions ​ potentially discouraging employers from hiring women, which contradicts the fundamental purpose of the proposal. Given the economic state of the country at the time, this was also viewed as an act that could undermine efforts to stem the recession. As can be seen, numerous voices of opposition emerged when it was time to debate and vote on the bill. The 2007 act passed in the House with a 225-199 vote. However, the Senate was the true battleground for the bill. Despite the House and Senate both operationally having Democratic majorities, as two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes, this was not enough to garner full support in the Senate. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) described the debate as “not [being] about allowing, favoring or supporting discrimination,” and Senate Republicans vehemently affirmed that opposing the bill did not 10 Thomas Ferraro and Kevin Drawbaugh, “Congress Clears Wage Bill for First Obama Signature,” Reuters, January ​ ​ 27, 2009, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-labor/congress-clears-wage-bill-for-first-obama-signature-idUSTR E50Q77Z20090127. 11 “High Court Limits Pay-Discrimination Claims.” Gopal 5 12 mean that they were unsympathetic to victims of salary discrimination. ​ Ultimately, Senate ​ Republicans filibustered the bill and blocked it by a vote of 56 to 42. The entire debate was highly polarized—Senate Democrats were so agitated by their inability to reach an agreement with the Republicans that they did not even convene the Senate until 5 PM so that their two presidential primary candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL), could return from the campaign trail. Following this further, with senators Barack Obama and John McCain (R-AZ) both having strong opposing stances on the issue, the Ledbetter Act inevitably became a paramount topic in the 2008 presidential election. Despite the bill not passing in the Senate, it became abundantly clear that this fight was not over. As both presidential candidates embarked on their campaign trails, they were vocal about their thoughts on the Ledbetter issue. Barack Obama made a pledge to nullify Ledbetter v. ​ Goodyear early on in his campaign and repeatedly endorsed the legislative approach during his ​ fight for the presidency. Lilly Ledbetter gave a rousing speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention and appeared in a number of Obama campaign advertisements “blasting John 13 McCain for opposing pay discrimination laws.” ​ Ledbetter was a powerful critic of McCain and ​ an asset to Obama’s campaign. The Supreme Court case became a significant presidential campaign issue and mattered greatly to voters.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lessons Learned from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    LESSONS LEARNED FROM JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG Amanda L. Tyler* INTRODUCTION Serving as a law clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Supreme Court’s October Term 1999 was one of the single greatest privileges and honors of my life. As a trailblazer who opened up opportunities for women, she was a personal hero. How many people get to say that they worked for their hero? Justice Ginsburg was defined by her brilliance, her dedication to public service, her resilience, and her unwavering devotion to taking up the Founders’ calling, set out in the Preamble to our Constitution, to make ours a “more perfect Union.”1 She was a profoundly dedicated public servant in no small measure because she appreciated just how important her role was in ensuring that our Constitution belongs to everyone. Whether as an advocate or a Justice, she tirelessly fought to dismantle discrimination and more generally to open opportunities for every person to live up to their full human potential. Without question, she left this world a better place than she found it, and we are all the beneficiaries. As an advocate, Ruth Bader Ginsburg challenged our society to liber- ate all persons from the gender-based stereotypes that held them back. As a federal judge for forty years—twenty-seven of them on the Supreme Court—she continued and expanded upon that work, even when it meant in dissent calling out her colleagues for improperly walking back earlier gains or halting future progress.2 In total, she wrote over 700 opinions on the D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Polarization, the Supreme Court, and Congress
    +(,121/,1( Citation: 86 S. Cal. L. Rev. 205 2012-2013 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Thu Apr 10 10:43:56 2014 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0038-3910 ARTICLES END OF THE DIALOGUE? POLITICAL POLARIZATION, THE SUPREME COURT, AND CONGRESS RICHARD L. HAsEN* I. INTRODUCTION On the last of three historic days of oral argument considering the constitutionality of the Obama administration's health care law, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court turned to the question of severability: if the Court struck down one or more major components of the law, should the entire, over 900-page law' fall as well, or should the Court sever the unconstitutional parts and preserve the rest of it? One of the lawyers arguing in favor of severability contended that even if the Court struck down the heart of the law, "yes, Congress would have wanted" 2 other provisions kept intact, such as those giving new benefits for victims of black lung disease. In response, Justice Kennedy asked, "[T]he real Congress or a hypothetical Congress?"3 The audience laughed.4 * Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, Irvine School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Ginsburg's Call to Action: the Court, Congress, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
    Trinity College Trinity College Digital Repository Senior Theses and Projects Student Scholarship Spring 2015 Justice Ginsburg's Call to Action: The Court, Congress, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 Youlan Xiu Trinity College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/theses Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Xiu, Youlan, "Justice Ginsburg's Call to Action: The Court, Congress, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009". Senior Theses, Trinity College, Hartford, CT 2015. Trinity College Digital Repository, https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/theses/480 Justice Ginsburg’s Call to Action: The Court, Congress, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 Public Policy & Law Senior Honors Thesis Youlan Xiu Trinity College, Hartford, CT Spring 2015 Table of Contents: Introduction: Common Cents: Ledbetter, The Law, and Congress........................3 Chapter 1: The Eleventh Circuit .........................................................................................15 Chapter 2: Framing the Supreme Court Opinions ......................................................27 Chapter 3: A Matter of Precedent ......................................................................................36 Chapter 4: Majority Failure ..................................................................................................53 Chapter 5: The Ball in Congress’s Court .........................................................................61
    [Show full text]
  • IDA B. WELLS-BARNETT In-House Counsel on December 16 at the Grand Ballroom of the Waldorf Astoria JUSTICE AWARD - FEBRUARY 11 Hotel
    COUNTYNEW YORK LAWYER January / February 2009 Visit us at www.nycla.org Volume 5 / Number 1 NYCLA’s Centennial Dinner INSIDE Honors Corporate In-House Counsel BLACK HISTORY MONTH GLORIA BROWNE-MARSHALL NYCLA’s Centennial year culminated with a gala dinner honoring 59 corporate TO RECEIVE IDA B. WELLS-BARNETT in-house counsel on December 16 at the Grand Ballroom of the Waldorf Astoria JUSTICE AWARD - FEBRUARY 11 Hotel. The 1,200 attorneys, judges, govern- PG. 2 ment officials, members of academia and guests bade farewell to Hon. Judith S. Kaye, Chief Judge of the State of New York, the Dinner’s keynote speaker, who ETHICS INSTITUTE UPDATE was stepping down from the bench at the end of the year having reached the 70-year BY LEWIS TESSER retirement age. Judge Kaye was the first PG woman to occupy the State Judiciary's . 3 highest office when she was appointed in 1993 and became the longest-serving Chief Judge in the State’s history. DECONSTRUCTING THE The Dinner’s theme, “Honoring Corporate In-House Counsel,” acknowl- BAR EXAM edged and celebrated the invaluable work that corporate law departments have done PG. 6 on behalf of their clients and the legal sys- tem, as well as the leadership and dedica- tion of corporate General Counsels. “This evening is a wonderful conclusion Pictured are the Corporate Counsel who were honored standing with Hon. Judith S. Kaye 2008 FEDERAL (second row, far left) and NYCLA President Ann B. Lesk (second row, second from right). to NYCLA’s Centennial Celebration,” AND TATE EGISLATIVE declared Ann.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review - Supreme Court Decisions and Women’S Rights: Milestones to Equality (2Nd Ed., C
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University University Library Faculty Publications Georgia State University Library 4-1-2011 Book Review - Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights: Milestones to Equality (2nd ed., C. Cushman (Ed.), Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2011) Amanda J. Swygart-Hobaugh M.L.S., Ph.D. Georgia State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/univ_lib_facpub Part of the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons, Gender and Sexuality Commons, and the Women's History Commons Recommended Citation Swygart-Hobaugh, A. J. (2011). Review of the book Supreme Court decisions and women’s rights: Milestones to equality (2nd ed.), (C. Cushman (Ed.), Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2011). Feminist Collections: A Quarterly of Women's Studies Resources, 32(2), 31-32. This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Georgia State University Library at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in University Library Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. New Reference Works tious and we’re the first to get Perhaps the set’s greatest strength Clare Cushman, ed., SUPREME fired and what we look like is that it organizes and gathers into a COURT DECISIONS AND WOM- is more important than what coherent whole the extensive global EN’S RIGHTS: MILESTONES TO we do… And for lots of other literature on feminism produced over EQUALITY, SECOND EDITION, reasons we are part of the roughly the last decade. And yet it goes fwd.
    [Show full text]
  • 11643 Hon. Alan Grayson Hon. Kenny Marchant Hon. Jeff Miller
    May 5, 2009 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS, Vol. 155, Pt. 9 11643 must therefore help schools provide safe taking, inspiration, and the heart and soul of ipal Courts, municipal service center, aquatic places for students to learn. If we do not, we millions of Americans supporting the space & recreation center, animal shelter and adop- risk losing more children to the streets, to de- program. And it took the competence and tion center, Town Center Plaza, Old Town de- pression, or even to suicide. America’s chil- courage of Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins to velopment, multiple park facilities, multiple dren deserve our support. They deserve the make Apollo 11 the success that it was. road improvements, with a new senior and Safe Schools Improvement Act. As the culmination of the U.S.-Soviet space community center and municipal cemetery f race that commenced with the Soviet’s launch now being constructed, all developed to meet of Sputnik in 1957, Apollo 11’s success sig- the needs of a growing population. INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION nified the United States’ ability to establish A major focus on economic development TO AWARD THE CONGRESSIONAL preeminence in space. It also helped inspire a was also led by the mayor. This resulted in GOLD MEDAL TO THE CREW OF generation to pursue careers in science and many commercial and industrial developments THE APOLLO 11 MISSION TO THE engineering, and to believe in the power of bringing new revenue to the city that has en- MOON American society. Alone in that hotel room, abled the community to enjoy many quality of watching TV, I certainly felt a lasting sense of life improvements without the need for addi- HON.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Rbg: Mentor, Friend, Hero
    REFLECTIONS ON RBG: MENTOR, FRIEND, HERO Goodwin Liu* I’m often asked what it was like to clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I first met Justice Ginsburg at my clerkship interview. I was excited and nervous, so I asked a couple of former clerks for advice. They said they loved working with her, and they noted that she spoke softly and often paused between sentences, so I should be careful not to interrupt her. Over the years, I got used to her pace of conversation, but at the interview, I took extra care not to speak over her words. In fact, I let so much time pass before responding to anything she said that she must have thought I was waiting for translation. The fact is that Justice Ginsburg was always very careful in choosing her words, written or spoken. If we were as careful as she was, we might slow down and pause more often too. Ten minutes into the interview, she offered me the clerkship. I was so thrilled that the rest of the conversation was a blur. I do remember that she had read my writing sample, an obscure law review article titled Social Security and the Treatment of Marriage.1 She knew this topic inside and out because one of her favorite cases as a litigator was Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, in which the Supreme Court struck down a Social Security provision that allowed widows but not widowers to collect survivor benefits.2 We found common ground in critiquing gendered breadwinning and caregiving roles, and now as a parent balancing work and home life, I often draw inspiration from the example that she and her husband Marty set for all of us.
    [Show full text]
  • Through the Eyes of Pioneers: Accounts of the Womenâ•Žs
    Wright State University CORE Scholar Master of Humanities Capstone Projects Master of Humanities Program 2015 Through the Eyes of Pioneers: Accounts of the Women’s Suffrage Movement in Dayton, Ohio (1890-1920) Michelle Schweickart Wright State University - Main Campus Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/humanities Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Repository Citation Schweickart, M. (2015). Through the Eyes of Pioneers: Accounts of the Women’s Suffrage Movement in Dayton, Ohio (1890-1920) (Master's thesis). Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master of Humanities Program at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Humanities Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Through the Eyes of Pioneers: Accounts of the Women’s Suffrage Movement in Dayton, Ohio (1890-1920) By: Michelle Schweickart “I believe in woman suffrage because I believe in fundamental democracy. There can be no fundamental democracy where half the population, being of sound mind, are compelled to obey laws in the making of which they have had no voice . But if I must say more, then I would say that women today need, and are asking for the ballot not because they wish to forsake their homes, but because they wish to make their homes better places to live in. Woman needs the ballot to protect her home and her children, now as always her first care . .” - Grace Isabel Colbron, “Why I Believe in Woman Suffrage,” n.d.
    [Show full text]
  • Nancy Pelosi Is the 52Nd Speaker of the House of Representatives, Having Made History in 2007 When She Was Elected the First Woman to Serve As Speaker of the House
    More than 30 Years of Leadership & Progress SPEAKER.GOV “Pelosi is one of the most consequential political figures of her generation. It was her creativity, stamina and willpower that drove the defining Democratic accomplishments of the past decade, from universal access to health coverage to saving the U.S. economy from collapse, from reforming Wall Street to allowing gay people to serve openly in the military. Her Republican successors’ ineptitude has thrown her skills into sharp relief. It’s not a stretch to say Pelosi is one of very few legislators in Washington who actually know what they’re doing.” – TIME Magazine Cover Profile, September 2018 Nancy Pelosi is the 52nd Speaker of the House of Representatives, having made history in 2007 when she was elected the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House. Now in her third term as Speaker, Pelosi made history again in January 2019 when she regained her position second-in-line to the presidency, the first person to do so in more than 60 years. As Speaker, Pelosi is fighting For The People, working to lower health care costs, increase workers’ pay through strong economic growth and rebuilding America, and clean up corruption for make Washington work for all. For 31 years, Speaker Pelosi has represented San Francisco, California’s 12th District, in Congress. She has led House Democrats for 16 years and previously served as House Democratic Whip. In 2013, she was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame at a ceremony in Seneca Falls, the birthplace of the American women’s rights movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Barbara A. Mikulski
    Barbara A. Mikulski U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND TRIBUTES IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES E PL UR UM IB N U U S VerDate Aug 31 2005 12:18 May 15, 2017 Jkt 098900 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE16\23051.TXT KAYNE congress.#15 Barbara A. Mikulski VerDate Aug 31 2005 12:18 May 15, 2017 Jkt 098900 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE16\23051.TXT KAYNE 73-500_mikulski.eps S. DOC. 114–22 Tributes Delivered in Congress Barbara A. Mikulski United States Congressman 1977–1987 United States Senator 1987–2017 ÷ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2017 VerDate Aug 31 2005 12:18 May 15, 2017 Jkt 098900 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE16\23051.TXT KAYNE Compiled under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing VerDate Aug 31 2005 12:18 May 15, 2017 Jkt 098900 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 H:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE16\23051.TXT KAYNE CONTENTS Page Biography .................................................................................................. v Farewell Address ...................................................................................... vii Proceedings in the Senate: Tributes by Senators: Boozman, John, of Arkansas ..................................................... 37 Boxer, Barbara, of California .................................................... 18, 20 Cardin, Benjamin L., of Maryland ............................................ 11, 15 Casey, Robert P., Jr., of Pennsylvania ..................................... 11, 36 Cochran,
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 110 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 110 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2008 No. 65 Senate The Senate met at 5 p.m. and was Mr. PRYOR thereupon assumed the LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT called to order by the Honorable MARK chair as Acting President pro tempore. OF 2007—MOTION TO PROCEED— L. PRYOR, a Senator from the State of Resumed Arkansas. f The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. Under the previous order, the PRAYER RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY time until 6 p.m. is equally divided and The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- LEADER controlled between the two leaders or fered the following prayer: their designees. Each side will have a Let us pray. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. The majority leader is recog- full 30 minutes. Only You, Lord, are a mighty rock. The Senator from Massachusetts. nized. Be our strong refuge, for we trust Your Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield loving providence. myself such time as I might use. Guide our Senators. Show them the f Mr. President, our Nation was found- tasks that need to be done, enabling ed on the basic principle of fairness, them to order their priorities with SCHEDULE justice, and equality. Over the years, a Your wisdom. Direct them to common ORDER OF PROCEDURE continuing march of progress has ground so that united they can accom- brought these shared ideals to ever plish Your purposes. Inspire them to Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Rights Misconceptions About Ledbetter V
    Civil Rights Misconceptions about Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. By Hans Bader Note from the Editor: This article discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., as well as two subsequent pieces of legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 and the Paycheck Fairness Act. As always, The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy initiatives. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. The Federalist Society seeks to foster further discussion and debate about this issue. To this end, we offer links below to various materials discussing this topic, and we invite responses from our audience. To join the debate, please e-mail us at [email protected]. Related Links: • Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1074.ZS.html • Testimony of Lilly Ledbetter before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 23, 2008: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/ hearings/testimony.cfm?id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da1411260&wit_id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da1411260-1-1 • Allison Cimpl-Wiemer, Ledbetter v. Goodyear: Letting the Air out of the Continuing Violations Doctrine?, 92 Marqu. L. Rev. 355 (2008): http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1310&context=mulr • National Women’s Law Center, Fact Sheet: What the Paycheck Fairness Act Would Really Do (2012): http://www. nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pfa_myths_and_facts_factsheet_5.30.12_final.pdf I. LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. record of the Ledbetter case is much different than what has illy Ledbetter became famous when she lost her pay- been reported.
    [Show full text]