[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 66 (Thursday, April 24, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3395-S3396]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish today to strongly support the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would clarify the laws against pay 
discrimination. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy, chairman of the 
Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee, for his leadership on 
the bill. He has been a tireless champion for civil rights and I 
applaud his work.
  Mr. President, we as Americans are bound by a powerful idea--a 
revolutionary idea--that our nation is a work in progress. It is an 
idea etched in the words of the Constitution: ``to form a more perfect 
union.'' It is an idea that has inspired some of our Nation's greatest 
achievements--abolishing slavery, banning segregation, and expanding 
voting rights. It is an idea that brings the best out of our public 
service.
  This week in the Senate we have an opportunity to take another 
important step along our path of progress--to make our union more 
perfect.
  It is no secret that pay gaps exist in our country. Gender, race, 
national origin, age, disability, or religion should not have any 
effect on a worker's pay. But, sadly, they do. Nationally, women earn 
77 cents for every dollar that men earn. In Colorado, women earn 79 
cents for every dollar that men earn. The inequities are even clearer 
when you break the numbers in Colorado down by ethnicity. On average, 
African-American women earn 61.2 percent of what White men earn. Asian-
American women earn 68.4 percent; Hispanic women earn 52.4 percent; and 
Native American/Alaskan Native women only earn 54.7 percent of what 
White men earn.
  These pay disparities persist partly because women still occupy fewer 
high-paying jobs than men. But they also persist because of continued 
pay discrimination in the workplace. We have laws on the books to make 
pay discrimination illegal, but those laws can be improved.
  Lilly Ledbetter's case is a classic, and tragic, example. Ms. 
Ledbetter worked for the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Gadsden, 
AL, for 19 years. She was a manager, a position predominately occupied 
by men at the company. After early retirement, Ms. Ledbetter learned, 
from an anonymous note, that male managers at the company were making 
20 to 40 percent more than she was making in the same job.
  So Ms. Ledbetter took Goodyear to court. The jury found that the 
company violated her rights under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964. They awarded her back pay and damages.
  The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, however, reversed the 
district court decision. They said that Ms. Ledbetter filed her case 
too late. They said she needed to file her complaint within 180 days 
after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.
  Rightly, Ms. Ledbetter appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its 5-
to-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the 180-day statute of 
limitations begins when the original discriminatory act occurs. Whether 
the worker even knew that the discriminatory decision was made is of no 
consequence. Whether they were discriminated against for 1 or 20 years 
is also insignificant under the Court's majority decision.
  It is critical to understand the profound impact of the Court's 
decision. If an employee cannot challenge a discriminatory paycheck 
beyond the 180 days that the employer made the discriminatory decision, 
companies that discriminate cannot be held accountable for their 
actions. Six months after a discriminatory action, the bad actor is in 
the clear. This was certainly not the intent of Congress when it 
enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg raised a good question 
and a matter of common sense. How was Ms. Ledbetter supposed to know, 
and therefore complain, when she was first given a lower raise than her 
male counterparts? Goodyear, like many employers, kept salaries and 
raises confidential.
  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would correct this injustice. The 
bill would amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other 
civil rights laws to make clear that the 180-day statute of limitations 
on a pay discrimination claim, based on gender, race, national origin, 
religion, age or disability, would restart every time an employee 
receives any wages or benefits affected by the discriminatory act. This 
was the law of the land for decades, with the exception of three 
States, until the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear.
  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act should receive the unanimous support 
of this body. We should all agree on the principle of `equal pay for 
equal work.' We should all agree that pay discrimination has no place 
in a 21st century America. And we should all agree that when there is a 
clear problem with the existing law, we should correct it.
  We have come a long way over the last 2\1/2\ centuries toward opening 
the doors of opportunity to every American. But ours is a nation still 
in progress, and our Union can still be perfected.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of 
the Fair Pay Restoration Act, S. 1843,--and I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of this bipartisan measure, introduced by Senator 
Kennedy and supported by 40 of my colleagues in the Senate. This bill 
would rightly provide victims of workplace gender discrimination with 
the reasonable timeframe they deserve to file discrimination suits 
under Federal law--while restoring longstanding precedent that was 
regrettably reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court last year.
  I firmly believe that America should be a global leader on issues 
related to gender discrimination and equal pay, but with its decision 
in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the Supreme Court 
telegraphed entirely the wrong message to the rest of the world about 
the value of equal pay for equal work--and ignored the realities of pay 
discrimination. Furthermore, with the economy in crisis, gas prices 
sky-high, and housing values falling, it is all the more critical we 
not lose vital ground on fair pay.
  It is no secret that women play a substantial leadership role in our 
Nation--we are business leaders, entrepreneurs, politicians, mothers, 
and much more. But regrettably, wage discrimination still exists and 
has remained constant for many years. In 1963, the year of the Equal 
Pay Act's passage, full-time working women were paid 59 cents on 
average to the dollar received by men. In 2004, more than 40 years 
later, women were only paid 77 cents for every dollar earned by men.
  What is even more troubling is that, according to a National Academy 
of Sciences report, between one-third and one-half of the wage 
disparities between men and women cannot adequately be explained by 
differences in experience, education, or other legitimate 
qualifications. And notably, this wage discrimination exists despite 
the passage of the Equal Pay Act that made it illegal to pay women less 
than men for performing equal work.
  Wage discrimination also continues to exist despite the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination in employment and wages on 
the basis of sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. This 
pernicious injustice continues despite Congress passing the 1991 Civil 
Rights Act, which I strongly supported, along with most of my 
colleagues on both sides of the political aisle.
  As a former cochair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, I 
have been a longtime advocate in the pay equity debate. As some of my 
colleagues may remember, in 1984, Representative Claudine Schneider, R-
RI, Representative Nancy Johnson R-CT, and I wrote to the Reagan 
administration asking that it prevent the Justice Department from 
weighing in against AFSCME v. Washington, which supported the concept 
of pay equity. And as a Member of the House of Representatives, I 
repeatedly introduced bipartisan resolutions that would have 
established a commission to study compensation practices in Congress 
from 1984 to 1993. It is therefore simply unconscionable to imagine 
that in this day and age, wage-setting practices are still being 
affected by historical gender biases resulting in the undervaluation of 
work and low pay for women.

[[Page S3396]]

  Sadly, the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter will make it 
virtually impossible for women workers to close the wage gap and to 
receive the remedies they deserve when they are discriminated against. 
This decision represents an enormous step backward for women and for 
any person alleging pay discrimination.
  Lilly Ledbetter's story poignantly coupled with this unfortunate 
ruling reminds us that wage discrimination persists across our Nation. 
It is therefore long past time we reversed the Supreme Court's decision 
in Ledbetter and clarified that laws against pay discrimination apply 
to every paycheck or other compensation a worker receives. And Senator 
Kennedy's Fair Pay Restoration Act would reestablish a fair rule for 
filing claims of pay discrimination based on race, national origin, 
gender, religion, age or disability.
  This bipartisan measure would also impose a reasonable time limit for 
filing pay discrimination claims and would start the clock for filing 
pay discrimination claims when compensation is received, rather than 
when the employer decides to discriminate. Each discriminatory paycheck 
would restart the clock for filing a pay discrimination claim and as 
long as workers file their claims within 180 days of a discriminatory 
paycheck, their charges will be considered timely. This measure would 
restore the precedent applied by nine courts of appeals and the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission in pay discrimination cases until the 
Supreme Court's May 29, 2007. It would also maintain the current limits 
on the amount employers owe.
  The bill would also restore congressional intent, by mirroring 
language prohibiting discriminatory seniority systems, which was 
included in the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1991. The bill was signed 
by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and I was pleased to support 
this measure which passed with overwhelmingly bipartisan support.
  Some contend this bill would ``exacerbate the existing heavy burden 
on the courts by encouraging the filing of stale claims'' . . . that it 
would allow employees to bring a claim of pay or other employment-
related discrimination years or even decades after the alleged 
discrimination occurred. That is simply an exaggeration. The fact is--
employers would not have to adjust for salary differences that occurred 
decades ago. Current law limits back pay awards to 2 years before the 
worker filed a job discrimination claim under title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, and this bill would not change this 2-year limit on 
back pay.
  I cannot overstate my support for the Fair Pay Restoration Act, and I 
encourage my colleagues in the Senate to vote for this legislation 
tomorrow to ensure equal pay for women and minorities in the workforce. 
Discrimination of any kind in the workplace should not be tolerated. It 
is time the law reflected that.
  Thank you. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that a copy of 
my remarks be included in the Congressional Record.

                          ____________________