[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 128 (Saturday, August 4, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1746]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. NANCY E. BOYDA

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2007

  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Speaker, on May 29th, 2007, the Supreme 
Court ruled on Ledbetter vs. Goodyear. Lilly Ledbetter was a 19-year 
employee of the Goodyear Tire Plant in Gadsden, AL. After discovering a 
substantive wage gap between herself and her seemingly equal, male co-
workers, Ledbetter filed suit claiming gender wage discrimination. 
While Ledbetter won the case in a Federal court, Goodyear appealed and 
the case made it to the Supreme Court. In a thin margin, 5-4, the 
Supreme Court decided that Ledbetter had missed her legal window. Under 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employees have 180 days 
after an alleged act of discrimination takes place to file a complaint. 
While this 180-day deadline has commonly been interpreted to start over 
with each additional paycheck, the Supreme Court limited this right and 
claimed that only the first paycheck counts as the act of 
discrimination.
  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the four Supreme Court 
justices who disagreed with the ruling, and she called upon Congress to 
act. H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is Congress's 
response. This bill will reverse this Supreme Court decision by making 
the original Congressional intent clear--renewing the 180-day deadline 
every time a worker receives a discriminatory paycheck. This 
strengthens measures to ensure paycheck fairness and to address unfair 
wage gaps through legal measures, as well as strengthens the rights of 
employees.
  This ruling is in blatant disregard of how the average employment 
environment functions. It means that unless employees discover a 
potentially discriminatory action within the first 180 days of their 
first paycheck, or last pay change, they have no legal ground to 
challenge it. This ruling was made with the assumption that new 
employees enter their workplace with a clear knowledge of what their 
coworkers earn and that more established employees already know the 
wages of their coworkers. This is not the case. Many employees do not 
feel comfortable talking about their wages in the workplace, or 
disputing their wages too soon after beginning a new job. Moreover, 
many workplaces discourage their employees from discussing their wages 
at all. Yet, if employees do discover that they have been discriminated 
against, and it's past the 180-day deadline, employers have legal 
immunity.
  While I respect the Supreme Court, I believe that Justice Ginsburg 
was correct when she stated that the Court's decision ignored real-
world employment practices. This is not a gender issue; all employees 
should have an equal chance of getting a just wage.
  I believe that Congress must find a way to fix the problem that the 
Ledbetter decision poses for employees who have experienced 
discrimination. However, I do not believe that this bill was the best 
way to accomplish that. By not establishing any deadlines after the 
initial hire date, Congress has now gone too far; similar to the 
Supreme Court decision, they have ignored the realities of the average 
employment environment. I agree that employees need more time than 180 
days, but I also believe that employers need to be afforded some 
timeline as well. I hope to work with both women's organizations and 
businesses to find an equal balance--we owe both sides that degree of 
security about what our anti-discrimination laws mean.

                          ____________________