“I am proud that the first major piece of legislation signed by President Obama reaffirms the basic and fundamental American value of equal pay for equal work. Unfortunately, the outrageous employment practice of paying workers differently based on prejudice was sanctioned by a sorely misguided Supreme Court decision in May 2007 and demanded immediate attention.

“With President Obama’s signature today, we ensure that women and other workers who are discriminated against while on the job have the ability to receive a fair remedy. Ongoing pay discrimination is an attack on all working Americans and must be stamped out.  The Congress and the President restored the law today and ensured that discriminatory paychecks are not immune from challenge.

“I also commend Lilly Ledbetter’s incredible courage and perseverance over the past couple of years in making her voice heard in this debate. Thanks to Lilly Ledbetter’s efforts, even though it is too late for her to receive justice, millions of Americans will be able to once again fight against the despicable practice of workplace discrimination.”

For more information on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, click here.

By a 250 to 177 vote, the House approved the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would clarify that every paycheck or other compensation resulting from an earlier discriminatory pay decision constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act. As long as workers file their charges within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, their charges would be considered timely. This was the law prior to the Supreme Court’s May 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

“The Supreme Court simply told bad employers that to escape responsibility for pay discrimination, all they need to do is keep it hidden for the first 180 days,” said U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee and chief House sponsor of the bill. “But today, thanks to Lilly’s incredible courage and perseverance, Congress rejected this ruling for the millions of Americans suddenly now subject to legal discrimination.”

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would also apply to workers who file claims of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, or disability.

“The passage of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in the House today is a rejection of the Supreme Court's ill-conceived Ledbetter decision and a restoration of an American worker's right to reasonably seek restitution against pay discrimination,” said Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), chairman of the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee.

According to a report from the New York Times, the Ledbetter decision has already been cited in more than 300 discrimination cases. Not only have pay discrimination cases been adversely impacted, but protections guaranteed by the Fair Housing Act, Title IX, and the Eight Amendment have also been affected.

Lilly Ledbetter worked for nearly 20 years at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company facility in Alabama. She sued the company after learning that she was paid less then her male counterparts at the facility, despite having more experience than several of them. A jury found that her employer had unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of sex.

However, the Supreme Court said that Ledbetter had waited too long to sue for pay discrimination, despite the fact that she filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as soon as she received an anonymous note alerting her to pay discrimination.  
 
While Ledbetter filed her charge within 180 days of receiving discriminatory pay, the court ruled that, since Ledbetter did not raise a claim within 180 days of the employer’s decision to pay her less, she could not receive any relief. Under this Supreme Court decision, employees in Ledbetter’s position would be forced to live with discriminatory paychecks for the rest of their careers. To view Ledbetter’s letter of support, click here.

Contrary to claims from critics, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2007 that since the bill would essentially return the law to where it stood before the Supreme Court ruling, the legislation will not lead to an onslaught of costly new litigation. Click here for the CBO estimate.

 

“I applaud the Senate’s swift approval of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Our nation is one step closer to correcting a disastrous Supreme Court decision that allows bad employers to engage in illegal employment discrimination so long as they keep it hidden for 180 days. Illegal employment discrimination in any form is an attack on all working Americans and must be stamped out.

“The 2007 Ledbetter Supreme Court decision has already had a chilling impact on hundreds of discrimination claims. It wasn’t Lilly Ledbetter’s fault that Goodyear decided to pay her less because she was a woman. But a narrowly divided, ideological Supreme Court said that even though her company had engaged in illegal pay discrimination in secret for decades, she would have to live with a smaller pension and Social Security benefit for the rest of her life. This isn’t just or fair by any measure.

“It is well past time to reset the law to where it was before the ruling. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will do just that. I expect the House will quickly pass the Senate’s version and send it to President Obama for his signature.”

BACKGROUND

Lilly Ledbetter worked for nearly 20 years at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company facility in Alabama. She sued the company after learning that she was paid less then her male counterparts at the facility, despite having more experience than several of them. A jury found that her employer had unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of sex.
 
However, the Supreme Court said that Ledbetter had waited too long to sue for pay discrimination, despite the fact that she filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as soon as she received an anonymous note alerting her to pay discrimination.  
 
While Ledbetter filed her charge within 180 days of receiving discriminatory pay, the court ruled that, since Ledbetter did not raise a claim within 180 days of the employer’s decision to pay her less, she could not receive any relief. Under this Supreme Court decision, employees in Ledbetter’s position would be forced to live with discriminatory paychecks for the rest of their careers.

Contrary to claims from critics, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2007 that the legislation will not lead to an onslaught of costly new litigation.  Click here for the CBO estimate.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11) would clarify that every paycheck or other compensation resulting from an earlier discriminatory pay decision constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act. As long as workers file their charges within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, their charges would be considered timely. This was the law prior to the Supreme Court’s May 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

“The Supreme Court’s misguided decision is already having very harmful consequences far beyond Ms. Ledbetter’s case and must not stand,” said U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. “This issue is about basic fairness for our nation’s workers. Americans shouldn’t be treated differently based on the color of their skin, gender, disability or faith.”

“The passage of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in the House today is a rejection of the Supreme Court's ill-conceived Ledbetter decision and a restoration of an American worker's right to reasonably seek restitution against pay discrimination,” said Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), chairman of the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would also apply to workers who file claims of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, or disability.
 
According to a report from the New York Times, the Ledbetter decision has already been cited in more than 300 discrimination cases. Not only have pay discrimination cases been adversely impacted, but protections guaranteed by the Fair Housing Act, Title IX, and the Eight Amendment have also been affected.

Lilly Ledbetter worked for nearly 20 years at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company facility in Alabama. She sued the company after learning that she was paid less then her male counterparts at the facility, despite having more experience than several of them. A jury found that her employer had unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of sex.
 
However, the Supreme Court said that Ledbetter had waited too long to sue for pay discrimination, despite the fact that she filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as soon as she received an anonymous note alerting her to pay discrimination.  
 
While Ledbetter filed her charge within 180 days of receiving discriminatory pay, the court ruled that, since Ledbetter did not raise a claim within 180 days of the employer’s decision to pay her less, she could not receive any relief. Under this Supreme Court decision, employees in Ledbetter’s position would be forced to live with discriminatory paychecks for the rest of their careers. To view Ledbetter’s letter of support, click here.

Contrary to claims from critics, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2007 that since the bill would essentially return the law to where it stood before the Supreme Court ruling, the legislation will not lead to an onslaught of costly new litigation. Click here for the CBO estimate.

The House-passed bill is the same as the bill approved in 2007. President-Elect Obama has indicated his strong support for the measure. The legislation is supported by a broad coalition of civil rights, worker, religious and business groups. To view supporters of the legislation, click here.

By a 256 to 163 vote, the House passed the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 12), introduced by U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), a bill that will strengthen the Equal Pay Act and close loopholes that have allowed many employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay. The measure, along with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, was among the first to be considered by the 111th Congress.

“This is a historic step forward in the fight for equal rights for women. It’s a shame that so many women still struggle to receive equal pay for equal work,” said Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. “Any wage gap based on gender is unacceptable, especially as we work to rebuild our economy during these tough economic times. If we are serious about closing the gender pay gap, we must get serious about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at the weak sanctions under current law.”

“In this economy, families are struggling to make ends meet. Not one of them deserves to be shortchanged, but because women still earn 78 cents for every dollar men earn, many unfortunately are. But this does not need to be,” said Rep. DeLauro. “Today, by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act, we send a strong message that gender discrimination is unacceptable and women will have the tools they need to combat it. We are standing up for working women and their families. It is our moment to fight for economic freedom and eliminate the systemic discrimination faced by women workers. With this legislation, we begin the change, make history, and change lives.”

“As millions of workers continue to struggle during this economic downturn, it is more important than ever to ensure that every American – regardless of gender – receives equal pay for equal work,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. “Today’s passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act is not only symbolically important, but makes real changes to the law which will in turn raise thousands of women out of poverty, especially those who are single parents. The Equal Pay Act was passed over 45 years ago with the best of intentions. It is fitting that we now update the law so that we can renew our commitment to tackle equal pay head on.”

Although the wage gap between men and women has narrowed since the passage of the landmark Equal Pay Act in 1963, gender-based wage discrimination remains a significant problem for women in the U.S. workforce. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women only make 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man.

The Institute of Women’s Policy Research concluded that this wage disparity will cost a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over her lifetime in lost wages.

Specifically, the Paycheck Fairness Act would:

Require that employer seeking to justify unequal pay bear the burden of proving that its actions are job-related and consistent with a business necessity;
 
Prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information with their co-workers;
 
Put gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of wage discrimination – such as discrimination based on race, disability or age – by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages;
 
Require the Department of Labor to enhance outreach and training efforts to work with employers in order to eliminate pay disparities;
 
Require the Department of Labor to continue to collect and disseminate wage information based on gender; and
 
Create a new grant program to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.
 
The legislation is supported by a broad coalition of civil rights, worker, religious and business groups. To view supporters of the legislation, click here.

“As documented by OSHA, Cintas has a history of repeated safety violations nationwide, and allowing them a full two years to address pre-existing and well documented hazards is unacceptable.  As the Chair of the Subcommittee on Workplace Protections, it will be one of my top priorities to reform OSHA, strengthen its oversight and enforcement capabilities, and hold employers more accountable to America’s workers.  I look forward to working with the President-Elect, as well as his newly announced Labor Secretary, my friend and colleague Hilda Solis, to ensure that workers are protected, and that companies who chose to threaten their safety through violations of labor laws are held accountable.”

 “On its way out the door, the Bush Labor Department has granted serial offender Cintas a despicable pardon for their failure to protect its workers from hazardous machinery,” Hare said. “The death of Eleazar Torres-Gomez last year was tragic and preventable. In the Tulsa plant where he worked, Cintas failed to install the guarding necessary to prevent him from being dragged into a 300 degree dryer. Workers have complained of the same hazards across the country. Yet this settlement gives Cintas an unacceptably long window to make the necessary improvements, with many plants having up to 2 years.  How many lives will be lost before this company is required to gets its act together? Cintas and the Labor Department may have settled, but I will not rest until justice is served for Mr. Torres-Gomez and every other worker endangered by this company’s lackluster working conditions. I plan to bring this case to the attention of the incoming Labor Secretary and will work with my colleagues on the Workforce Protections Subcommittee to further investigate this matter and achieve a more appropriate resolution.”

“We are also upset that the Department of Labor has changed all of the willful citations to ‘unclassified citations,’ despite the fact that Cintas knew about these hazards and OSHA originally found the company to be negligent,” the members added. “There is nothing in the law that even allows unclassified citations and we are determined to take legislative action to prohibit the declassification of willful citations.”

Among other things, they would create strong new criminal laws to penalize foreign labor recruiters and U.S. employers who lure guest workers into employment under false pretenses. They would also provide foreign workers with vital information on their legal rights when applying for employment or education related U.S. visas.

“For too long, employers and labor recruiters have escaped scot-free when exploiting and abusing guest workers. Not only do these actions take advantage of guest workers, but they also drive down wages and benefits for American workers,” said Miller. “At a time when too many Americans are seeing their jobs and wages slip away, I’m glad that Congress took this important step to start holding crooked employers and labor recruiters accountable, and want to thank Reps. Berman, Conyers and Lofgren for their leadership in making this happen.

“However, imposing criminal penalties is just one part of the equation,” Miller continued.  “We’ve got to do more to improve working conditions and wages for both guest workers and U.S. workers. I hope that the next Congress and new administration will take a comprehensive approach on labor and immigration issues.”

Hundreds of thousands of guest workers come to this country each year, often mortgaging their lives to pay thousands of dollars in fees to recruiters who promise them a good job. In too many cases, these workers arrive here only to work for unlivable wages, in deplorable working conditions – a far cry from what they were promised. Under the Bush administration, guest worker programs have been allowed to operate with little oversight from the Department of Labor.

Miller is also the author of legislation, the Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2007, (H.3. 1763), that would more comprehensively put a stop to these practices. Among other things, the bill would discourage employers from using disreputable guest worker recruiters and prohibit foreign labor recruiters from charging workers fees or misleading workers about the type of job, wages or working conditions they could expect.

The Bush administration is expected to release new regulations shortly that would leave both American workers and guest workers in the Department of Labor’s H-2A agricultural and H-2 B non-agricultural programs with fewer labor protections and lower wages.

For more information on Miller’s efforts to root out these abuses, click here.