For Immediate Release
January 9, 2009
Contact:  202.225.8351   
     

Rep. Scott Supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, by a vote of 247 to 171 (Roll Call no. 9).  The legislation would clarify that every paycheck or other compensation resulting from an earlier discriminatory pay decision constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act.  Representative Scott’s floor statement in support of the legislation is below:

 

“Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  This legislation reverses the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., in which the Court ruled that workers filing suit for pay discrimination must do so within 180 days of the decision to discriminate against them.  After 180 days from the initial decision to discriminate, the employer could continue its discriminatory practices and the employee would no longer have any legal remedy.

 

“Prior to the Supreme Court decision, employees could file suit against employers who were guilty of discriminatory pay practices within 180 days of any discriminatory act – not just the initial decision to discriminate – so that each paycheck in which women were paid less than men for performing the same job would restart the 180 day time period.  The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ledbetter v.  Goodyear changed this, so that now, if the discrimination is not discovered within the 180 days, employers are allowed to continue to discriminate.  The fact is that many women, like Lilly Ledbetter, do not learn about the discrimination until much later. 

 

“So under the Supreme Court decision, these women have no remedy under civil rights laws.  This bill corrects the injustice, and it does so without making a so-called dramatic change.  Most of the country operated under this policy anyway. 

 

“And also, the bill retains the two year limit on past wages that can be paid, so the burden of proof remains on the plaintiff.  So any delay which erodes evidence would place a higher burden on the plaintiff.  There is no incentive to delay bringing suit. 

 

“Madam Speaker, this is a common sense application of what everyone thought the law was anyway.  I commend Chairman Miller for bringing this bill to the floor and urge my colleagues to support it."

(####)

     
 

Home | Press List