Rush Holt advocates equal pay for equal work BY LORI ANNE OLIWA Correspondent U.S. Rep. Rush Holt House passes bill that counters recent Supreme Court ruling U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, D-12, a member of the House Committee on Education and Labor, recently expressed his support for women in the workplace by his sponsorship of H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007. The House of Representatives passed the bill July 31 by a vote of 225-199. The legislation would allow pay discrimination claims to be filed within 180 days of the issuance of a discriminatory paycheck, not 180 days from the discovery of the discrimination, according to Holt. "The clock would start ticking from the most recent paycheck," he said, adding, "If you've been receiving discriminatory pay, the statute of limitations won't expire until 180 days after your most recent paycheck." Holt explained that the bill is a reaction to the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Rubber and Tire Co. That case actually prompted the legislation, according to Holt. Lilly Ledbetter, the woman for whom the Fair Pay Act was named, was an employee of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. for decades. She said in the lawsuit that the company had been paying her a smaller salary than her male co-workers because of her sex. "She discovered that she was being paid less than the lowest paid male doing the same job, and she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission," Holt said. Initially, a jury awarded her damages based on a series of salary decisions retroactive for 19 years. However, the 11th District Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ordered that Ledbetter's complaint be dismissed, holding that her claim was time-barred because she could not prove intentional discrimination in either the one salary decision during the limitation period or the last salary decision preceding the limitation period. Ledbetter's case was then heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, who ruled against her on May 29. The high court said she had waited too long to sue for pay discrimination, despite the fact that she filed a charge with the EEOC as soon as she received an anonymous note alerting her to pay inequity. The court ruled that since she did not file a claim within 180 days of the actual decision to discriminate, she could not receive back pay. "The problem here is that most workers are unaware of what their co-workers earn, and many employers actually prohibit employees from discussing their pay with each other. This was a clear case of sex discrimination," Holt said. He added that Ledbetter's manager was alleged to have stated on several occasions that the company didn't need women. Explaining the principle upon which the legislation was authored, Holt said it is very simple - equal pay for equal work. "Passage of the bill will clarify that each act of discrimination - each paycheck - is unacceptable and legally actionable," he stated. According to the bill summary and text, the purpose of Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is "to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid, pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes." An excerpt from the legislation reads: "Congress finds the Ledbetter decision undermines those statutory protections by unduly restricting the time period in which victims of discrimination can challenge and recover for discriminatory compensation decisions or other practices contrary to the intent of Congress. The limitation imposed by the court on the filing of discriminatory compensation claims ignores the reality of wage discrimination and is at odds with the robust application of the civil rights law that Congress intended." The legislation also authorizes victims to seek additional compensation in the form of "accrued liability," which includes recovery of back pay for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge. This would be in addition to any relief already allowed by Section 1977a of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a). Holt believes that employers have an obligation to their employees. "Employers should not be absolved of their responsibility to employees," he said, "and the Supreme Court should not be searching for ways to protect corporations from being held accountable for discriminatory practices." Opponents of the bill argued on behalf of employers and were critical of the time they would need to spend in court defending claims of discrimination, according to a legislative brief on the House Web site, www.house.gov. "If that's the case, then we must root out the underlying problem," Holt argued. While the legislation has not been heard in the Senate, Holt is optimistic. "We must have a good mechanism in place to correct discriminatory behavior. This bill and the case it was founded on will have an educational effect and will help people understand that discrimination still exists, even in this day and age."