[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 117 (Friday, July 20, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9660-S9661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Obama, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Ms. Stabenow, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 1843. A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to clarify that an 
unlawful practice occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to a 
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's an honor to join my colleagues in 
introducing the Fair Pay Restoration Act to correct the Supreme Court's 
recent 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 
which undermined basic protection for workers against pay 
discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision also 
undermines pay discrimination claims under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Our bill 
would restore the clear intent of Congress when we passed these 
important laws that workers must have a reasonable time to file a pay 
discrimination claim after they become victims of discriminatory 
compensation.
  No American should be denied equal pay for equal work. Employees' 
ability to provide for their children, save for retirement, and enjoy 
the benefit of their labor should not be limited by discrimination. The 
Court's decision undermined these bedrock principles by imposing 
unrealistically short time limits on such claims.
  The jury in this case found that Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company 
discriminated against Lilly Ledbetter by downgrading her evaluations 
because she was a woman in a traditionally male job. For over a decade, 
the company used these discriminatory evaluations to pay her less than 
male workers who held the same position and performed the same duties. 
Supervisors at the plant where she worked were openly biased against 
women. One told her that ``the plant did not need women,'' and that 
they ``caused problems.'' Ms. Ledbetter's pay fell to 15 to 40 percent 
behind her male counterparts.
  Finally, after years, she realized what was happening and filed suit 
for the back pay she had been unfairly denied. The jury found that the 
only reason Ms. Ledbetter was paid less was because she was a woman, 
and she was awarded full damages to correct this basic injustice.
  The Supreme Court ruled against her, holding that she filed her 
lawsuit far too long after Goodyear first began to pay her less than 
her male colleagues. Never mind that she had no way of knowing at first 
that male workers were being paid more. Never mind that the company 
discriminated against her for decades, and that the discrimination 
continued with each new paycheck she received.
  The Supreme Court's ruling defies both Congress's intent and common 
sense. Pay discrimination is not like other types of discrimination, 
because employees generally don't know what their colleagues earn, and 
such information is difficult to obtain.
  Pay discrimination is not like being told ``You're fired,'' or ``You 
didn't get the job,'' when workers at least know they have been denied 
a job benefit. With pay discrimination, the paycheck typically comes in 
the mail, and employees usually have no idea if they have been paid 
fairly. They should be able to file a complaint within a reasonable 
time after receiving a discriminatory paycheck, instead of having to 
file the complaint soon after the company first decides to shortchange 
them for discriminatory reasons.
  The decision actually creates a perverse incentive for workers to 
file lawsuits before they know a pay decision is based on 
discrimination. Workers who wait to learn the truth before filing a 
complaint of discrimination could be out of time. As a result, the 
decision will create unnecessary litigation as workers rush to beat the 
clock in their claims for equal pay.
  The Supreme Court's decision also breaks faith with the Civil Rights 
Act of 1991, which was enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support, a 
vote of 93 to 5 in the Senate, and 381 to 38 in the House. The 1991 act 
had corrected this same problem in the context of seniority, 
overturning the Court's decision in a separate case. At the time, there 
was no need to clarify Title VII for pay discrimination claims, since

[[Page S9661]]

the courts were interpreting Title VII correctly. Obviously, Congress 
now needs to act again to ensure that the law adequately protects 
workers against pay discrimination.
  The Congressional Budget Office has made clear that this bill will 
not create costs for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the 
Federal courts. It simply restores the status quo as Congress intended 
and as it existed on May 28, 2007, before the Ledbetter decision was 
made.
  It is unacceptable that some workers are unable to file a lawsuit 
against ongoing discrimination. Yet that is what happened to Lilly 
Ledbetter. I hope that all of us, on both sides of the aisle, can join 
in correcting this obvious wrong.
  In recent years, the Supreme Court also has undermined other 
bipartisan civil rights laws in ways Congress never intended. It has 
limited the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, made it harder to 
protect children who are harassed in school, and eliminated peoples' 
right to challenge practices with a discriminatory impact on their 
access to public services. The Court has also made it more difficult 
for workers with disabilities to prove that they're entitled to the 
protection of the law.
  Congress needs to correct these problems as well. The Fair Pay 
Restoration Act makes sure that what happened to Lilly Ledbetter will 
not happen to any others. As Justice Ginsburg wrote in her powerful 
dissent, the Court's decision is ``totally at odds with the robust 
protection against employment discrimination Congress intended.'' I 
urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to restore the law 
as it was before the decision, so that victims of ongoing pay 
discrimination have a reasonable time to file their claims.

                          ____________________