High Court Limits Right To Sue Employers

Supreme Court Restricts Workers' Ability To Sue Over Pay Discrimination

(CBS/AP)  The Supreme Court on Tuesday limited workers' ability to sue employers for pay discrimination that results from decisions made years earlier.

The court, in a 5-4 ruling, said that employers would otherwise find it difficult to defend against claims "arising from employment decisions that are long past."

The case concerned how to apply a 180-day deadline for complaining about discriminatory pay decisions under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Lilly Ledbetter sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., claiming that after 19 years at the company's Gadsden, Ala., plant, she was making $6,000 a year less than the lowest-paid man doing the same work.

Ledbetter claimed the disparity existed for years and was primarily a result of her gender. A jury agreed, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because she had waited too long to begin her lawsuit.

The deadline set in the law means nothing if employees can reach back years to claim discrimination, the company argued to the court.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, agreed that Ledbetter's claim was untimely.

CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen said the decision is a clear victory for employers.

"By limiting the timeframe that employees can use the decision obviously helps employers, both in limiting the number of cases that will be brought under the federal law and reducing the amount of damages in play even if any of those cases are successful," Cohen said.

However, Cohen added that what is likely to come out of the ruling "is new pressure on employees to bring their complaints right away when they feel there is discrimination in the workplace. So in the short term we may actually see more cases against employers – though they will have less exposure to big damage awards thanks to the time limit the court has just recognized."

The decision broke along ideological lines, with the court's four liberal justices dissenting.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who once led the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, sided with Goodyear.

Five years ago, Thomas joined his liberal colleagues in a 5-4 decision that made it easier for victims to complain about long-term job discrimination or harassment when shabby treatment was extended over a period of months or years.

Ledbetter argued that each paycheck that was smaller than those received by similarly situated men amounted to a new discriminatory act. She didn't sue earlier, Ledbetter said, because employees are less willing to rock the boat when they are new on the job and have no reason to believe there could be such pay disparity.

The EEOC, which is responsible for investigating workplace discrimination claims, said Ledbetter's claims could go forward.

After a trial, she was initially awarded more than $3.8 million. A judge reduced the award to $360,000.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict. The appeals court said Ledbetter mainly was complaining about decisions made by her supervisors long ago, well after the deadline for raising allegations of discrimination.

The NAACP, AARP and other civil rights groups sided with Ledbetter, saying 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 passed.

Goodyear denied discriminating against Ledbetter. She received periodic raises despite being ranked near the bottom of her group of workers, the company said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business said that if the court had ruled for the worker in this case, employers would be subject to damages for innocent decisions made years ago that would be difficult to defend because of the passage of time.

The case is Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 05-1074.

[jasonmcj]

For employers, the lesson is obvious%u2014hide your misdeed for six months and you're not only off the hook, you get to keep cheating.

For employees, the lesson is equally clear: Sue early and often. If you suspect your boss might be discriminating with regard to your pay, you can't afford to wait around until you're sure.

[david1737]

Remember that the Bush Admin. has stacked the court system in America, especially the appeals court.

[sjw1253]

This is one time that I do agree with all of the political comments blaming the Bush camp ...

What I find the most ridiculous about all of this is the fact that 19 years ago - the woman would have had greater difficulty bringing such a suit - as the laws and awareness of the capability of suing for discrimination are just recently becoming more friendly to people such as this woman.

I think this is a case where the Supreme Court needs an appeals process where someone else can over-rule them... but this is the problem...

Maybe it is time to have the "rules" providing the justices a "life-time" job with no concern of losing their jobs if they demonstrate politically biased decisions.

They should be held accountable to uphold the ideas behind the constitution - making all people equal - and giving everyone equal rights.

[starleo146]

This Bush Supreme Court once again made Bush soooo proud Big business once again comes out ahead and middle class American lost once more. This Supreme court is so conservative they will rule every time against principles we hold so dear.

[brianbwb-2009]

Wait a minute, Decisions that are long past? who wrote the opinion? This literally allows company with an entrenched discrimination policy to limit lawsuits, because the decision to discriminate was made long ago.

There goes the ERA, and all anti discrimination laws, as well as a big chunk of civil rights, and here comes "whites only" "Jim Crow" and "barefoot and pregnant", again. "yeronner, we been a'doin it this-a-way fer dang near twenny five years now"...

Its time to take it to the streets again, Doobies

[jw218389]

You can joke all you want...BUT THE MIDDLE CLASS JUST GOT SCREWED AGAIN BY BUSH!!

Bush: Killing the Middle Class - both financially and in Iraq.

When are the Bush twins going to Iraq!!!???

[mcvet]

Q:

What's the difference between a lawyer & a catfish??

A:

One's a bottom crawling scum-sucker & the other is just a fish.

...
Posted by processor2 at 01:09 PM : May 29, 2007

I hate to ask this question, being you are a flaming Nazi but what the H-E-L-L does something this stupid have to do with this lady's problem? I know you have to be stupid to be a fascist, everyone knows that, but come on!! Sieg Heil Dumbo!!

[weareone2]

The Reagan-Bush court rules.
Just another example of the silliness of those who voted for the Green party because they said there wasn't any difference between the parties, and that the Supreme Court would never vote the way they've been voting.

[processor2]

Q:

What's the difference between a lawyer & a catfish??

A:

One's a bottom crawling scum-sucker & the other is just a fish.

...

[heresmy2cent]

All you need to know about the legal profession:

1) All lawyers (including "judges") are scum.

2) America has the best federal court system that money can buy.

[terrapin78]

Labor gets screwed again!