Why Lily Ledbetter is Controversial

January 29, 2009 RSS Feed Print

Even though Lily Ledbetter couldn't make her case to the Supreme Court, many of us probably believe that people should be able to sue for wage discrimination at a point beyond the 180-day period after their first discriminating paycheck, particularly if, like Ledbetter, we've worked at a place for years (decades!) and don't uncover the pay disparity until retirement.

But the merits of the law are actually fairly controversial. After all, President Bush didn't support it.

A recent WSJ editorial makes the objection clear--arguing that the Ledbetter act will "create a new legal business in digging up ancient workplace grievances." Here's more:

Since these supposed wrongs could be compounded over decades, the potential awards would be huge. Most companies would feel compelled to settle such claims rather than endure the expense and difficulty of defending allegations about long-ago behavior. The recipe here is file a suit, get a payday. And the losers would be current and future employees, whose raises would be smaller as companies allocate more earnings to settle claims that might pop up years after litigating employees had departed.

On the other side, Martha Burk, co-founder of the Center for Advancement of Public Policy, says the act doesn't go far enough, since the real problem was Ledbetter's lack of awareness of what her coworkers made. "The main reason Lilly Ledbetter got shafted was that she didn't know her situation compared to the men," Burk writes in a HuffPost piece. "Employers are under no obligation to report pay statistics, and in most companies you can get fired for talking pay with co-workers."

She shares this interesting detail about New Mexico:

Bill Richardson (Obama's choice for commerce secretary who voluntarily dropped out of consideration) has just signed an executive order in his state that is ground breaking. Not only will the state as an employer have to study and report it's own pay practices when it comes to gender and race, so will private sector companies that want state contracts.

Update: The excellent Opinion writers at USNews.com are in heated Ledbetter debate. See Bonnie Erbe's argument in favor of the law and Sam Dealey's argument against it.

Tags:
careers

Reader Comments Read all comments (13)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Your site is very convenient in navigation and has good design. Thanks!.

I am from Brunei and now teach English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Cytomel cytomel synthroid save on quality prescriptions, brand name drugs."

:D Thanks in advance. Tova.

Tova of WV 8:42PM May 21, 2009

I don't think Marth Burk thought out that statement she made because a very strict rule for most companies is to NOT discuss pay with other workers. It was not Ledbetter's fault that she isn't preoccupied in other co-workers personal buisness. Although she agrees with the fatc that an employee must not discuss pay with other employees, how exactly was Lilly supposed to be aware of the situation?

Anonymous of PA 9:28PM April 07, 2009

The claim that the law would force companies to "settle claims that might pop up years after litigating employees had departed" seems totally bogus, since claims can only be filed within 180 days of the last paycheck. Also, there are limits on the penalties that can be assessed and the time period that can be covered. I'm certainly not in favor of any lawyers' bonanzas, but this law seems very reasonable to me.

Dan of AZ 11:36PM February 03, 2009

The Inside Job

The Inside Job

You're taking a break from your job-hunting and job-hopping ways and have decided to stay put in your current position. Liz Wolgemuth’s careers blog will show you how to make the very best of your job, each day.

advertisement

advertisement