Presentation on theme: "Policy Project: Civil Rights- Gender Combat Employment Discrimination Jenna Pak and Nancy Ding."— Presentation transcript:
Policy Project: Civil Rights- Gender Combat Employment Discrimination Jenna Pak and Nancy Ding
Combat Employment Discrimination President Obama plans to overturn a Supreme Court decision that cuts minorities’ ability to challenge pay discrimination. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009 resolves this rule for women.
History Lilly Ledbetter has worked at Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for two decades. Suffered sexual harassment and discrimination from her co-workers. She testified against her supervisor in front of Congress because he, reportedly, asked for sexual favors from Ledbetter. He was reassigned to another position. Received pay raises, but in 1998 an anonymous co-worker slipped a note of her fellow male counterparts salary. While she received approximately $3,727 a month, her male counterparts received $4,286- $5,236. Sued Goodyear and was to receive $3.3 million, later reduced to $300K. However, in a Supreme Court ruling, she could not receive the money because she did not file her claim 180 days after her first discriminatory paycheck.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009 Took from 2007-2009 for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act to pass. Act allows an individual subjected to compensation discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other anti-discrimination laws to file a charge within 180 days of any of the following: : “ when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid... ”
Problems: Supreme Court In May 2007, the Supreme Court ruled its decision for Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber co., a case where Ledbetter was receiving a discriminatory paycheck, but could not receive her compensation from a jury rule. The 5-4 ruling undercut the “ability of employees to seek redress for pay discrimination under Title VII, the main federal anti-employment discrimination statue.”
Supreme Court: Opinions Majority: Opinion focused on a recent ruling, Amtrak v. Morgan, which concluded that “’discrete acts’ of discrimination must be challenged within 180 days of the occurrence.” Dissent: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote a dissent to this decision. The Dissenting opinion read by her from the bench, “In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination,"
Problem: Rep. Senators In 2008, in a 56-42 vote, the Senate fell short of 60 for considering the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. Republican Senators, like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), felt the timing of this vote surrounded around the Democratic presidential candidates, who wanted to “score points” in the race. They also felt that it could remove the deadlines of filing a lawsuit of discriminatory pay within a 180 days. President Bush also opposed the act, which influenced its failure to pass in 2007.
Public Opinion The Middle Class They are supportive because they need the protection of anti- discrimination laws to ensure that they are treated fairly by employers Employers Many of them oppose to this piece of legislation because it erases employers’ ability to argue that employees “cannot complain about allegedly discriminatory pay scales that have been in place for lengthy amounts of time without any prior complaint.” If passed, they believe that it may lead to more cases on “unequal pay” to appear
National Women’s Law Center A think tank based in Washington, D.C whose mission is to “protect and advance the progress of women and girls at work, in school, and in virtually every aspect of their lives.” Supportive of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009 for the following reasons: Believe that women should enforce their right to get equal pay and they should be able to challenge every discriminatory paycheck they receive Filed an amicus brief for her case and testified before Congress
U.S. Chamber of Commerce They are the world’s largest business federation who represents more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region They oppose to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009 Supports the concept of equal employment opportunity However, they oppose the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Restoration Pay Act because it would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They believe that by passing this law, it can increase the number of “frivolous and otherwise questionable cases that could be brought against employers.” They believed that in the ruling of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the predecessor to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, was a “fair decision” in terms of how the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Goodyear.
People for the American Way A politically liberal advocacy organization and interest group Their mission is for “ everyone to be treated equally under the law, given the freedom and opportunity to pursue their dreams, and encouraged to participate in our nation’s civic and political life…” Active advocates for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act Savethecourt.org Pfaw.org Urges Congress to approve this law so then there would not be another case of pay discrimination President of People for the American Way, Kathryn Kolbert, believes that it is “a crucial step towards equal treatment for women in the workplace…. Thanks to the dedicated efforts of our champions in the Congress and the support of President Obama, we're back on the right track.” Belief that the Court’s ruling in Ledbetter’s first attempt was impractical due to the reason that many are ignorant to the amount of money their coworkers make
Congress Congressional Democrats Supportive of its predecessor, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Proposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Restoration Pay Act to reform the Supreme Court’s decision in 2007 regarding its predecessor. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer believes that if passed, “victims of discrimination will no longer be denied their legal recourse due to loopholes in existing law.” Republican Senators They strongly opposed this because : They believed that Democrats only want to score political points before the fall presidential campaign by supporting this piece of legislation believed that by passing this, it can remove the deadlines kept on filing for lawsuits for pay discrimination within 180 days
Why it finally passed… President Obama supported this piece of legislation even as a senator Supported strongly by Congressional Democrats When the Obama administration had begun, Democrats had the majority in both the Senate and House Therefore, this led to the numbers of Democrats overruling the Republicans so that the bill was capable of being passed. In the House of Representatives, it was passed with a 250-177 in favor of the Democrats In the Senate, it was passed with a 61-36 margin
Political Forecast As it was passed in January 2009 by the 111 th Congress as its first act, the issue of combating employment discrimination was resolved by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009 President Obama has long advocated for this piece of legislation Ledbetter had assisted him during the presidential campaign by campaigning with him and speaking at the National Democratic Convention We believe that this issue would’ve been resolved quickly anyway, regardless of the support by President Obama The topic of equal pay discrimination affects a large part of the country’s population that would no doubt gain an unprecedented amount of attention on its own