Supreme Court Limits Discrimination Suits

Does this stop actions for a four year old problem?

____________

May 29, 2007

Supreme Court Limits Discrimination Suits

WASHINGTON, May 29

May 29, 2007

Supreme Court Limits Discrimination Suits

WASHINGTON, May 29 The Supreme Court ruled today, in a case of
considerable interest to business and industry, that employers should
be protected from lawsuits over pay discrimination linked to gender or
race and based on decisions made or acts committed years ago.

Voting 5 to 4 after apparently heated deliberations, the justices
found in favor of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and against
Lilly M. Ledbetter, who worked for 19 years at the company's plant in
Gadsden, Ala., and was paid substantially less than men doing work at
the same level.

The majority found against Ms. Ledbetter, saying she could not show
that there had been intentional discrimination in the 180-day period
before she complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
in March 1998, shortly after she retired following an unwanted
transfer. Goodyear's argument that federal law protected the company
from claims concerning discrimination that occurred before Sept. 26,
1997

May 29, 2007
Supreme Court Limits Discrimination Suits

WASHINGTON, May 29 The Supreme Court ruled today, in a case of
considerable interest to business and industry, that employers should
be protected from lawsuits over pay discrimination linked to gender or
race and based on decisions made or acts committed years ago.

Voting 5 to 4 after apparently heated deliberations, the justices
found in favor of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and against
Lilly M. Ledbetter, who worked for 19 years at the company's plant in
Gadsden, Ala., and was paid substantially less than men doing work at
the same level.

The majority found against Ms. Ledbetter, saying she could not show
that there had been intentional discrimination in the 180-day period
before she complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
in March 1998, shortly after she retired following an unwanted
transfer. Goodyear's argument that federal law protected the company
from claims concerning discrimination that occurred before Sept. 26,
1997 -- or 180 days before Ms. Ledbetter filed her E.E.O.C. action
was upheld.

Today's ruling affirmed a decision by the United States Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, which overturned a Federal
District Court jury's award to Ms. Ledbetter. The jury had awarded her
more than $3 million in back pay and compensatory and punitive
damages, but the judge lowered the amount to $360,000 because of
limits imposed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The high court's majority rejected the position of other federal
appeals courts and the commission that the "paycheck accrual rule"
should be followed, meaning that each pay period that fails to correct
past discrimination should be regarded as a new incident of
discrimination.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said that
"current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged
discrimination."

"Ledbetter should have filed an E.E.O.C. charge within 180 days after
each allegedly discriminatory pay decision was made and communicated
to her," Justice Alito wrote. "She did not do so, and the paychecks
that were issued to her during the 180 days prior to the filing of her
E.E.O.C. charge do not provide a basis for overcoming that prior
failure."

Alluding to an earlier Supreme Court ruling, Justice Alito conceded
that the 180-day deadline is "short by any measure." But he went on,
"This short deadline reflects Congress's strong preference for the
prompt resolution of employment discrimination allegations through
voluntary conciliation and cooperation." Joining Justice Alito were
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia,
Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy.

The Bush administration had entered the case on Goodyear's behalf. The
case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, No. 05-1074, was
argued on Nov. 27. Neal D. Mollen, an employment-law attorney in
Washington who filed a brief backing Goodyear on behalf of the United
States Chamber of Commerce, told Bloomberg News that today's ruling
has "great importance for employers."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read part of her dissent aloud (itself an
unmistakable sign of anger), and the tone of her opinion showed how
bitterly she differed with the majority. She asserted that the effects
of pay discrimination can be relatively small at first, then become
far more serious as subsequent raises are based on the original low
pay, and that instances of pay inequities ought to be treated
differently from other acts of discrimination. For one thing, she
said, pay discrimination is often not uncovered until long after the
fact.

The majority's holding, she said, "is totally at odds with the robust
protection against workplace discrimination Congress intended Title
VII to secure." She said the majority "does not comprehend, or is
indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay
discrimination."

"This is not the first time the Court has ordered a cramped
interpretation of Title VII, incompatible with the statute's broad
remedial purpose," she wrote. Her dissent was joined by Justices John
Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer.

"Once again, the ball is in Congress's court," Justice Ginsburg wrote,
expressing the hope that the lawmakers "may act to correct this
parsimonious reading of Title VII."