[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H113-H124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 2009
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section
5(a) of House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 11) to amend title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to
clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice
that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid
pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice,
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 11
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
of 2009''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), significantly impairs
statutory protections against discrimination in compensation
that Congress established and that have been bedrock
principles of American law for decades. The Ledbetter
decision undermines those statutory protections by unduly
restricting the time period in which victims of
[[Page H114]]
discrimination can challenge and recover for discriminatory
compensation decisions or other practices, contrary to the
intent of Congress.
(2) The limitation imposed by the Court on the filing of
discriminatory compensation claims ignores the reality of
wage discrimination and is at odds with the robust
application of the civil rights laws that Congress intended.
(3) With regard to any charge of discrimination under any
law, nothing in this Act is intended to preclude or limit an
aggrieved person's right to introduce evidence of an unlawful
employment practice that has occurred outside the time for
filing a charge of discrimination.
(4) Nothing in this Act is intended to change current law
treatment of when pension distributions are considered paid.
SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF RACE,
COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.
Section 706(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e-5(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3)(A) For purposes of this section, an unlawful
employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in
compensation in violation of this title, 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, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or
other practice.
``(B) In addition to any relief authorized by section 1977A
of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), liability may
accrue and an aggrieved person may obtain relief as provided
in subsection (g)(1), including recovery of back pay for up
to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the
unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the
charge filing period are similar or related to unlawful
employment practices with regard to discrimination in
compensation that occurred outside the time for filing a
charge.''.
SEC. 4. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF AGE.
Section 7(d) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 (29 U.S.C. 626(d)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
(B) by striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(d)(1)'';
(2) in the third sentence, by striking ``Upon'' and
inserting the following:
``(2) Upon''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) For purposes of this section, an unlawful practice
occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in
violation of this Act, when a discriminatory compensation
decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes
subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other
practice, or when a person is affected by application of a
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice,
including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is
paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or
other practice.''.
SEC. 5. APPLICATION TO OTHER LAWS.
(a) Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.--The
amendments made by section 3 shall apply to claims of
discrimination in compensation brought under title I and
section 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq., 12203), pursuant to section 107(a)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12117(a)), which adopts the powers,
remedies, and procedures set forth in section 706 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5).
(b) Rehabilitation Act of 1973.--The amendments made by
section 3 shall apply to claims of discrimination in
compensation brought under sections 501 and 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791, 794), pursuant
to--
(1) sections 501(g) and 504(d) of such Act (29 U.S.C.
791(g), 794(d)), respectively, which adopt the standards
applied under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 for determining whether a violation has occurred in a
complaint alleging employment discrimination; and
(2) paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 505(a) of such Act
(29 U.S.C. 794a(a)) (as amended by subsection (c)).
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Rehabilitation act of 1973.--Section 505(a) of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794a(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``(42 U.S.C.
2000e-5 (f) through (k))'' the following: ``(and the
application of section 706(e)(3) (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(3)) to
claims of discrimination in compensation)''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``1964'' the
following: ``(42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) (and in subsection
(e)(3) of section 706 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5),
applied to claims of discrimination in compensation)''.
(2) Civil rights act of 1964.--Section 717 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(f) Section 706(e)(3) shall apply to complaints of
discrimination in compensation under this section.''.
(3) Age discrimination in employment act of 1967.--Section
15(f) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29
U.S.C. 633a(f)) is amended by striking ``of section'' and
inserting ``of sections 7(d)(3) and''.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, take effect
as if enacted on May 28, 2007 and apply to all claims of
discrimination in compensation under title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et
seq.), title I and section 503 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, and sections 501 and 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that are pending on or after that
date.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 5(a) of House Resolution
5, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5
minutes.
Madam Speaker, the 2007 Ledbetter v. Goodyear Supreme Court ruling
was a painful step backwards in the civil rights in this country.
Today, the House will vote once again to say that the ruling is
unacceptable and must not stand.
Nondiscrimination in the workplace is a sacred American principle.
Workers should be paid based upon their merits and their
responsibilities, not on the employer's prejudices. Yet, more than 40
years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme
Court decided to dramatically turn back the clock.
Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear for nearly two decades. Just as
she was retiring as supervisor in 1998, she found out that her salary
was 20 percent, 20 percent lower than that of the lowest paid male
supervisor. Not only was Ms. Ledbetter earning nearly $400 a month less
per month than her male colleagues, she also retired with substantially
smaller pension and Social Security benefits. A jury found that
Goodyear in fact had discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter because she
was a woman. She was awarded $3.8 million in back pay and damages. This
amount was reduced to $360,000 because of the damage gap of title VII
of the Civil Rights Act.
Despite the fact that the jury found Goodyear guilty of
discrimination, a sharply divided Supreme Court in a 5-4 opinion
decided that while Goodyear discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter, her
claim was made too late. They had discriminated against her, but she
was too late in making her claim.
Why was she too late? Because they said that she had filed outside
the 180 day statute of limitations because she did not file after they
had taken their secret executive action to pay Ms. Ledbetter less than
her male counterparts. The fact of the matter is, she did not know that
all of the time that she was working because of the secrecy of that
act. The practical result, the practical result of the decision by this
court, would be that as long as they could continue to hide the act, if
they could get past 180 days, Ms. Ledbetter could be discriminated
against and she would not be able to recover anything.
The law has said for a very long time that when a decision was made
which was discriminatory in its nature, every paycheck issued since
that time was a continuation of the original discriminatory act and Ms.
Ledbetter had 180 days and other plaintiffs had 180 days to file from
the last paycheck that was issued. Ms. Ledbetter did that, but the
Supreme Court saw otherwise.
So, what the Supreme Court is saying is that employers would be
allowed to continue to discriminate against employees without any
consequences if they could hide it for 180 days. That is simply
unacceptable in the American workplace, it is unacceptable to women in
this country, and it is important that we pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair
Pay Act, which would reset the law as businesses and most courts and
employees and the EEOC had understood it to be before the court's
dramatic ruling.
Under H.R. 11, every paycheck or other compensation resulting in
whole or in part from an early discriminatory pay decision or other
practice would continue as a violation of title VII. That is as it
should be. That is as it was before the court spoke.
In other words, each discriminatory paycheck would restart the clock
for filing a charge. As long as workers filed their charges, as Ms.
Ledbetter herself
[[Page H115]]
did, within 180 days of the discriminatory paycheck, their charges
could be considered as timely.
No worker should have to put a full day's work in and get a paycheck
at the end of the week that is based upon their gender, race or
religion, without any recourse to justice. That is what this
legislation will stop. It is fundamental and it is important.
This legislation also ensures that these simple reforms extend to the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the Rehabilitation Act to provide these same protections for
victims of age and disability discrimination. Connecting pay
discrimination poses significant challenges to workers, made all the
harder by the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision.
The reality is that most workers don't know what their coworkers are
making. Employers often prohibit employees from discussing their pay
with each other. We fix these problems also with the passage of the
Paycheck Fairness Act.
The court's misguided decision is already having very harmful
consequences far beyond Ms. Ledbetter's case. According to The New York
Times, the Ledbetter decision has been cited in over 300 cases in the
last 19 months that have denied people the opportunity to provide for
recovery.
In this economy, especially in this economy, when every dollar counts
to every worker in this country, to provide for themselves or their
families, to provide for the wherewithal to go through the daily life
in America, we cannot have people discriminated against because of
their gender. We can pass the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act, and that will
end that practice in the American workplace.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this seriously flawed
legislation before us. Not only would it amount to a radical change to
our civil rights laws, it has come to us without the benefit of the
serious consideration and debate due such a significant policy shift.
The enthusiastic supporters of the Ledbetter Act want us to believe
that we are simply voting on a straightforward bill to reverse a
Supreme Court decision involving discrimination in the workplace.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that isn't the whole story. While this
bill would reverse a Supreme Court decision for the benefit of Lilly
Ledbetter, it would also dismantle the longstanding statute of
limitations established by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That statute of
limitations was deemed to be critical in that Supreme Court decision.
In so doing, this bill would set into motion unintended consequences
that its supporters simply are not willing to acknowledge, including
radically increasing the opportunity for frivolous and abusive
litigation and exposing employers to open-ended lawsuits indefinitely.
Further, this bill would also permit individuals to seek damages
against employers for whom they never worked by allowing family members
and others who were never directly subjected to discrimination to
become plaintiffs, even after the worker in question is deceased.
In the current economic climate, as the gentleman from California
said, especially in this economic climate, we cannot afford to enable
endless litigation and potentially staggering record keeping
requirements on employers. We also should be wary of the devastating
effect this bill would have on pensions by exposing employers to
decade-old discrimination claims that they have little ability to
defend. This legislation could risk the retirement security of millions
of hard-working Americans.
Madam Speaker, it is very clear that this legislation amounts to a
significant change in our civil rights laws. What is less clear are the
answers to a number of relevant questions, many of which remain
unanswered because of a complete disregard for the normal legislative
process.
As you may know, not one legislative hearing was conducted on this
bill in the last Congress. This bill has instead been brought to the
floor in haste, completely bypassing any deliberation by me and my
colleagues on the Committee on Education and Labor. Surely such a
monumental change to our civil rights laws deserves more reflection.
My concerns and unanswered questions can only lead me to say that the
Ledbetter bill makes for bad policy created through a poor legislative
process. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a subcommittee Chair of
the Education and Labor Committee.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding.
I wanted to clear up what I think were three inaccuracies in my
friend from Minnesota's statement about the bill.
First of all, this bill will not extend an endless statute of
limitations. It restores the statute of limitations the law recognized
until the ill-considered Ledbetter decision. It essentially says you
have 180 days after each paycheck to make your claim. If you don't make
your claim, your claim expires. It doesn't extend the statute beyond
that.
Second, with respect to pensions, the bill makes it clear in the
``findings'' section that the same law that applied to pensions is not
touched by this bill at all. The courts have generally recognized that
when the pension structure is put in place and the person gets their
pension, the clock starts running, and if the time expires after that,
your ability to make the claim expires after that.
Finally, with respect to the point that is made about people who
never worked for the employer being able to sue, I think that is simply
not an accurate statement. What is true is if someone suffers
discrimination and their estate is owed money for what they would have
earned when they were working, the estate is absolutely entitled to
recover that sum of money because the man or woman who died would have
recovered that.
{time} 1045
So this is a good bill. There was an extensive hearing on this issue
previously. I would urge the House to do the right thing and adopt this
bill. It should not become the law of the land that if you're an
employer and can hide discrimination for 180 days you get away with it.
If the Ledbetter decision stands, that's what the law is. Let's change
that law and adopt this bill.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous
consent that we yield the remainder of our time to the ranking member
on the Education and Labor Committee (Mr. McKeon) to control the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-considered and
overreaching legislation. Proponents of this bill claim it simply
reverses a May 29, 2007, U.S. Supreme Court decision and clarifies
congressional opposition to wage discrimination. In reality, however,
this bill will set into motion a series of unintended consequences that
will ripple through the economy and plague workers, small businesses,
and the judicial system with a vast new legal minefield.
At the outset, let me make it clear that opposition to discrimination
of any type, be it gender discrimination, racial discrimination or any
other type of discrimination inside and outside the workplace, is not
confined to one party or the other. Every Member of this Chamber stands
in strong opposition to the unfair treatment of any worker.
At the same time, I believe we must stand firmly behind a process
that ensures justice for all parties, and that includes protecting
against the potential for abuse and over-litigation. It is my
commitment to those principles that requires me to vote no on this bill
today.
For more than 40 years, title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has
made it illegal for employers to determine an
[[Page H116]]
employee's pay scale based on his or her gender. This is a principle
upon which all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, can agree. As
such, current law provides that any individual wishing to challenge an
employment practice as discriminatory must first file a charge with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the applicable statute
of limitations, which is either 180 or 300 days, depending on his or
her state of employment after the alleged workplace discrimination
occurred.
The statute of limitations was clearly established in the law to
encourage the timely filing of claims which helps prevent the filing of
stale claims and protects against the abuse of the legal system.
Consider these ``worst case'' scenarios, for example:
Without a statute of limitations in place, an employee could sue for
pay discrimination resulting from an alleged discriminatory act that
might have occurred, 5, 10, 20 or even 30 years earlier.
And without a statute of limitations in place, it is entirely
conceivable that a worker or retiree could seek damages against a
company run by employees and executives that had nothing to do with the
initial act of the alleged discrimination that occurred dozens of years
ago.
The bill before us would dismantle the statute of limitations and
replace it with a new system under which every paycheck received by the
employee allegedly discriminated against starts the clock on an
entirely new statute. While fair-minded in principle, this dramatic
change in civil rights law would have an incredibly far-reaching
impact, one that supporters of the bill have yet to take the time to
thoroughly and appropriately consider. Indeed, if this bill becomes
law, the worst case scenarios I just described could become
commonplace. And let's not kid ourselves: our Nation's trial lawyers
would seize upon that.
Madam Speaker, this bill is not a matter of tinkering around the
edges as its supporters would have the American people believe. Rather,
it is a fundamental overhaul of longstanding civil rights laws.
The last major change to these laws occurred more than 15 years ago,
and after several years of debate. Yet, here we are, just hours into
the 111th Congress, and without having held legislative hearings, a
committee markup, or even an open-debate process on the floor, voting
on a highly flawed bill without any regard to its long-term
ramifications.
I'm opposed to discrimination in the workplace, and I believe that
workers must have a protected right to avail themselves of legal
protections when such discrimination occurs. That right exists today in
carefully crafted civil rights law that ensures fairness and justice
for all parties. Unfortunately, the bill before us is neither fair nor
just, and for that reason, I will oppose it. I urge my colleagues to do
likewise.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
Jersey is recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am pleased at this point to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
California (Ms. Woolsey) in favor of this restoration of 40 years of
civil rights legislation.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Lilly Ledbetter went to work at Goodyear Tires every day
for 19 years. She was one of the few female supervisors at the plant,
and she was an outstanding one, at that. She received awards for her
work.
However, all of those years she was paid less than her male
colleagues, 20 percent less by the time she retired, because of gender
discrimination.
A jury agreed that she had been discriminated against and awarded her
over $3.8 million in back pay and damages. But the Supreme Court, the
Federal Supreme Court, reversed the decision because it found that
Lilly didn't file her claim within 180 days of the initial decision to
discriminate, even though she had absolutely no idea at the time that
she was being paid less than her male counterparts simply because she
was a woman.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores the common and longstanding
understanding of employees, employers and the circuit courts alike
that, when it comes to discriminatory pay, the protection of title VII
extends not only to pay decisions and practices, but to each and every
paycheck as well.
Unfortunately, Lilly will not reap the benefits of this legislation.
As a result, she will continue to feel the effects of the Court's
wrongheaded decision for the rest of her life, through smaller pension
and Social Security benefits. But this bill will help other women, and
it will also be a reminder that absolutely no employer can tell their
employees to keep their pay a secret. They can tell you that, but, in
fact, they have no right and no legal standing.
So, along with bringing that to light, this wonderful bill is a
tribute to Lilly Ledbetter, who has paved the way for other women.
Mr. McKEON. I have no further speakers, so I will reserve our time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield at this time 2
minutes to one of the civil rights champions of this Congress, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This legislation reverses the Supreme
Court's decision in the Ledbetter case in which the Court ruled that
workers filing suit for pay discrimination must do so within 180 days
of the original decision to discriminate against them. After the 180
days from the initial decision to discriminate, the employer could
continue its discriminatory practices and the employee would no longer
have any legal remedy.
Prior to the Supreme Court decision, employees could file suit
against employers who were guilty of discriminatory pay practices
within 180 days of any discriminatory act, not just the initial
decision to discriminate, so that each paycheck in which women were
paid less than men for performing the same job would restart the 180-
day period. The Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter changed this, so
that now, if the discrimination is not discovered within 180 days,
employers are now allowed to continue to discriminate, even if the
pattern of discrimination is well known and acknowledged.
Unfortunately, the fact is that many women, like Lilly Ledbetter, do
not learn about the discrimination until much later. So under the
Supreme Court decision these women have no remedy under civil rights
laws. This bill corrects the injustice and does so, it does not make a
so-called dramatic change. Most of the country operated under this
policy anyway.
And also, the bill retains the 2-year limit on past wages, so the
burden of proof remains also on the plaintiff. So any delay which
erodes evidence would be a higher burden for the plaintiff. So there's
no incentive to delay bringing suit.
Madam Speaker, this is a commonsense application of what everyone
thought the law was anyway. I commend Chairman Miller for bringing the
bill to the floor, and urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield, at this time, 1
minute to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) who truly understands
what's wrong with the situation where you get paid based on your
gender.
Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 11, the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. And I want to thank Chairman
George Miller for his continuing leadership and dedication in bringing
this bill to the floor.
H.R. 11 is needed because the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2007, ruled in
Ledbetter v. Goodyear that did not take into consideration the reality
that discovering discriminatory pay at the outset is difficult for
employees. The Court's imposition of 180 days to file a discrimination
claim is totally unrealistic and unfair.
When Lilly Ledbetter came to testify before the Education and Labor
Committee in 2007, I was moved by her story of justice denied. Ms.
Ledbetter was deprived of lost wages compensation because she did not
know she was being paid less than her male colleagues until many years
had passed since her employers made the initial decision to
discriminate.
This bill restores fairness to any employee who has been paid less
than their coworkers. I urge my colleagues to support the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair
[[Page H117]]
Pay Act, as well as the Paycheck Fairness Act also being debated this
morning.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As we debate this legislation, Madam Speaker, I must point out that
the myths propagated by our friends in the majority are almost too much
to take, so I'd like to take a few moments to dispel some of their more
disingenuous claims.
We've heard them claim, for example, that H.R. 11 merely restores
prior law by reversing the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision. If
indeed this bill was intended simply to reverse the decision, it would
have been written to do just that. However, it wasn't. As we have
discussed, current law provides that an individual wishing to challenge
an employment practice as discriminatory must first file a charge with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the applicable
statute of limitations.
Let's be perfectly clear. This was the law both before and after the
2007 Supreme Court decision. This bill would dismantle that statute of
limitations and replace it with a new system in which every paycheck
received by the employee allegedly discriminated against starts the
clock on an entirely new statute. In other words it restores nothing.
Rather, it totally guts current law and leaves the door open for trial
lawyers to have a veritable field day.
Supporters of this bill also tell us that with hundreds of charges of
gender-based pay discrimination filed with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission each year, numerous claims will never be brought
to justice without this legislation.
Once again, nothing could be further from the truth. The right to
each and every EEOC pay discrimination claim exists today, just as it
has since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This bill does not restore any
rights because these rights never were taken away. Current law allows
an individual to challenge an employment practice as discriminatory by
first filing a charge with the EEOC within the applicable statute of
limitations. This bill does not establish any new rights, and its
supporters know this perfectly well.
Finally, the bill's supporters claim that unless this bill becomes
law, victims of pay discrimination will have no recourse unless they
file a claim within 180 or 300 days of that decision. Unfortunately,
the majority refuses to acknowledge clear protections against such a
scenario.
First, employees who believe they are victims of pay discrimination
may also have recourse under the Equal Pay Act, which is not subject to
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 180 to 300 days filing
requirements.
{time} 1100
Through a variety of legal doctrines, courts already allow plaintiffs
to file claims outside the statute of limitations where it is fair and
equitable for them to do so. For example, a court may choose to do so
in a case where an employer withheld critical information or otherwise
misled an employee into sleeping on his or her rights.
In short, Madam Speaker, the lack of candor from this bill's
proponents is clouding the debate, and I feel it is my duty to set the
record straight.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield to the
majority leader of the House of Representatives, who will lead us to
reverse this unfortunate Court decision today, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I thank Chairman
Miller from California. I thank my friend Mr. McKeon as well for the
consideration of this debate.
We've passed this bill before, properly so. Unfortunately, it didn't
pass the Senate. It wasn't signed by the President. That will not
happen this time. We will pass this bill. My belief is the Senate will
pass this bill, and the President of the United States will sign it.
Why? Because it's the right thing to do.
I listened to my friend in his conversation, but frankly, it somewhat
belies the fact that there came a case to the Supreme Court, and the
Supreme Court had to rule on the case, and the Supreme Court ruled on
the statute of limitation.
The value of work, of course, Madam Speaker, lies in a job well done,
not in the gender of the worker. I don't think there is a man or a
woman in this Chamber who would disagree, but all too often in America,
sexism, frankly, cheats women out of equal pay and equal worth. It
still robs women of their equal right to earn a livelihood, to provide
for their families and to secure the dignity of their labor. It does
much of its worst work in the dark.
Frankly, women in this body all know that they make the same thing as
the men in this body. Why? Because it's public information, but if it
were secret information, notwithstanding the fact that we had a number
of women vote against this the last time it was up, I would be shocked
that they would do so again if they were put in the position of making
$25,000 less than those of us who are males, doing exactly the same
job. That is the position, of course, Lilly Ledbetter found herself in.
So many of us know by now that Lilly Ledbetter was precluded from
recovery. For almost two decades, from 1979 to 1998, she was a
hardworking tire plant supervisor. For much of her career, she suffered
from two kinds of discrimination simultaneously--from sexual harassment
when a manager said to her face that women didn't belong in a factory
to the supervisor who tried to coerce her into a sexual encounter.
There was pay discrimination as well. There's no doubt about that. Now,
she couldn't recover for it because the Supreme Court said she hadn't
acted. By the end of her career, she was making nearly $7,000 less than
the lowest paid man in the same position.
Both kinds of discrimination were founded on the belief that women in
the workplace are second-class citizens. I hope there are no women in
America who believe that, and I would hope there are no men in America
who believe that. I say that as a father of three women, as the
grandfather of two granddaughters and as the great grandfather of a 2-
year-old young woman.
Of the two, the unfair pay may have been the most damaging, between
the sexual discrimination and the pay discrimination. The sexual
discrimination, obviously, is abhorrent, but the pay discrimination
diminished Lilly Ledbetter's opportunities in our country.
There has been a lot said on this floor about ``it's their money, and
they know how to spend it better,'' and we've talked about that in
terms of tax bills. ``It's their money, and they know how to spend it
better.'' If that's the case, then I would hope that this bill would
pass unanimously to make sure that their money, which they earn fairly,
is paid to them so they then can use it as they see fit.
Ms. Ledbetter might have been in the dark to this day; they may have
kept it a secret because people, particularly in the private sector,
don't go around, saying, ``Well, I make X and you make Y.'' In fact, a
lot of employers tell their employees, ``Don't tell people what you
make.'' Lilly Ledbetter didn't know how badly she was being
discriminated against.
A coworker, however, gave her proof of what her employer was doing to
her. Such silent discrimination is surprisingly common because it is so
difficult to identify. After all, how many of us know what the salaries
of our coworkers are? As I said, we do. My friend from California knows
that she makes the same thing as Mr. Miller makes, and that's
appropriate. They are both elected; they both have the same job; they
both work hard, and they're paid the same.
Lilly Ledbetter took her employer to court, but the Supreme Court
finally ruled against her. So, apparently, there is a problem
somewhere, not because she was making it all up but because she had
failed to file suit 180 days after her first unfair paycheck. Now, that
adopts the premise that the subsequent paychecks somehow were not in
violation of the law. They were. Every time she was paid
discriminatorily, it was another violation of the law. In fact, the 180
days should have run from the last violation of the law, which, of
course, was the last time she was paid in a discriminatory fashion. You
have 6 months to find out you're being paid unfairly or you're out of
luck for a lifetime.
[[Page H118]]
The Supreme Court's flawed ruling ignored the real-world facts of
discrimination, and it has the potential to harm thousands of women,
indeed, hundreds of thousands and millions of women and their children
and their families and our communities and society, leaving victims of
pay discrimination without any recourse.
As Justice Ginsburg said--and she put it in as a strong dissent--
``Pay disparities often occur . . . in small increments; cause to
suspect that discrimination is at work develops only over time.
Comparative pay information, moreover, is often hidden from the
employee's view . . . Small, initial discrepancies may not be seen to
meet the Federal case, particularly when the employee, trying to
succeed in a nontraditional environment, is averse to making waves.''
That's what Justice Ginsburg said. So, apparently, Justice Ginsburg
thought there was a problem to which we ought to respond, which is what
is happening today.
``The ball,'' Justice Ginsburg concluded, ``is in Congress' court . .
. The legislature may act to correct this Court's parsimonious
reading.''
That is what we are doing today. That is the right thing to do for
our country. It is the right thing to do for women. It is the right
thing to do for our families, and that is the aim of the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
This bill gives employees a fair time limit to take action against
discrimination. A 180-day limit will still stand, but the clock is
reset after each violation of the law, as it should be, not simply
after the first one, and that change fits our commonsense understanding
of pay discrimination. It is not a single act but an ongoing practice
that is renewed every time the employer signs an unfair paycheck.
Madam Speaker, pay discrimination anywhere is an attack on the
dignity of every woman in every workplace in America. When workers face
unfair pay, they should find us standing by their side, not throwing up
technicalities and roadblocks on the way to equality.
For that reason, I urge every one of my colleagues, male and female,
Representatives of all of the people who ought to have equal
opportunity under the law. This accomplishes that objective. Vote for
this important piece of legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller) is recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. May I inquire of the Chair my time
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller)
has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a member of the committee.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong
support for H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. I thank
Chairman Miller of the Education and Labor Committee for his leadership
on this issue.
As a member of the Education and Labor Committee, I had the
opportunity to hear firsthand Ms. Ledbetter's story when she testified
before the committee in June of 2007. Her experience is, indeed,
appalling, but Ms. Ledbetter is not the only victim in this case. The
Supreme Court's decision makes it harder for all employees to challenge
pay discrimination.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores the integrity of our
Nation's pay discrimination protections by clarifying that every
discriminatory paycheck represents a new violation of the law,
restarting the clock on the statute of limitations. It restores the
protections, because prior to the Supreme Court's ruling, the EEOC and
most circuit courts understood the law the same way, that each
discriminatory paycheck restarted the clock.
The Supreme Court's ruling changed all of this, putting all workers
at a disadvantage, threatening the integrity of all pay discrimination
protections, not just gender-based pay discrimination. We have an
opportunity today to clarify the law, to strengthen our
antidiscrimination protections and to move one step closer to ensuring
the right of every worker to equal pay for equal work.
I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues
to support it as well. I ask them to support it not only for themselves
but for those who will come after us. It is critical that we have an
understanding, and when the courts face these issues again, it must be
very clear what was intended by Congress.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.
Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 11, the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I commend my chairman, Chairman Miller,
for bringing this important legislation forward.
Last year, I, too, had the privilege of hearing Ms. Ledbetter testify
before the Education and Labor Committee. After 19 years as a Goodyear
employee, Ms. Ledbetter discovered she was paid significantly less than
every single one of her male counterparts. She sued the company. She
took her case all the way to the Supreme Court. Ignoring a previous
court's judgment to award Ms. Ledbetter damages for pay discrimination,
the Supreme Court threw out the case based on a technicality.
The Court's decision ignores the reality of the workplace where
employees generally don't know enough about what their coworkers earn
or how decisions regarding pay are made to file a complaint right when
discrimination first occurs. Under this decision, employees in Ms.
Ledbetter's position are forced to live with discriminatory paychecks
for the rest of their careers.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would correct this wrong by
clarifying that every paycheck resulting from a discriminatory pay
decision constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act and that
employees have 180 days after each discriminatory paycheck to file
suit.
When the Supreme Court sanctions discrimination through
technicalities, it is the job of Congress to clarify the intent of the
law. I am pleased that our first action in the 111th Congress is to
stand up for American workers by invalidating this misguided ruling.
Once again, I commend my chairman, Chairman Miller, and I urge all of
my colleagues to vote for H.R. 11.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,
and I commend Chairman Miller for his leadership and for his tireless
efforts that have brought us so far.
We are here today because Lilly Ledbetter got short-changed, short-
changed by her employer--the perpetrator of consistent pay
discrimination lasting years--and short-changed again by the Supreme
Court.
A jury found that, yes, Lilly Ledbetter had been discriminated
against by her employer, and they awarded her $3.8 million in back pay
and damages. Then under Title VII, this award was reduced to $360,000,
ultimately to zero, when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against her last
year, drastically limiting women's access to seek justice for pay
discrimination based on gender, requiring workers to file a pay
discrimination claim within a 6-month period only, regardless of how
long the pay inequity goes on. When women still earn only about 78
percent of what men earn, this ruling essentially rolled back efforts
to ensure equal pay and left women with little remedy.
{time} 1115
Justice Ginsberg suggested in her dissent, ``Congress has an
obligation to correct the Court's decision.'' That is why we introduced
and passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act last year, clearly stating
the title VII statute of limitation runs from the date a discriminatory
wage is actually paid, not simply some earliest possible date which has
come and gone long ago. Instead, you would be able to challenge
discriminatory paychecks as long as you continue to receive them.
Earlier this week, Lilly Ledbetter wrote to the entire Congress, ``I
may have lost my personal battle, but I have not given up. I am still
fighting for all of the other women and girls out there who deserve
equal pay and equal treatment under the law.''
Madam Speaker, ensuring pay equity can help families gain the
resources they need to give their children a better future, the great
promise of the American Dream. Let us make good on
[[Page H119]]
that promise, pass this bill, and make sure women who face the
discrimination that Lilly Ledbetter faced have the right to fight
against it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).
Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay
Act. The Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision has made it significantly
harder for women and other workers to hold employers accountable for
pay discrimination. The Court's reasoning lacks common sense about the
realities of workplace discrimination, and completely disregards the
intent behind our robust civil rights laws.
Now we in Congress must correct this injustice, and H.R. 11 seeks to
do just that.
As a father and husband, I think it's shameful that by 2009 we
haven't been able to close the gender wage gap. Should my wife, who was
recently elected to serve as Staten Island's first woman Supreme Court
justice, receive a lower salary than her male counterparts simply
because of her gender?
I worry about my high school-aged daughter and hope that when she
enters the workforce, she will have the same opportunities as her male
colleagues. As asked by the majority leader, if she were elected to the
House today, should she be paid $145,000 while the men receive
$165,000? I say, No.
Is this America's promise to our young women? To my wife? To my
daughter? Enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will ensure
that when women face discrimination in the workplace, they will be able
to fight for and protect their rights to fair, equal treatment.
I recently visited Wagner College in my district and met with the
next generation of working women. I made a promise to all of the young
women of Staten Island and Brooklyn that I would work hard in Congress
to change the practices that permit women to earn only 77 cents on
every dollar made by men.
I thank the House leadership, and especially the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) for allowing me to be part of this
historic moment here today. Let us put to rest the age-old problem of
sex-based discrimination.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,
H.R. 11, and on H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
Jersey is recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Rules Committee,
the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for the time and for his leadership
on this issue.
I thank the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr.
Miller, for his tremendous leadership, as well as Representative Rosa
DeLauro for her commitment. And I rise today in strong support of this
bill.
Madam Speaker, I wish this legislation were not necessary. But,
sadly, nearly 45 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, pay
discrimination still exists; and in one fell swoop, in the Ledbetter
case, the Supreme Court made it immensely easier for discrimination to
prevail at the expense of women and their families across this country,
and that is unacceptable.
The Court held that Lilly Ledbetter would have had to file a
complaint within 180 days of when her employer began years of
discrimination against her even though there was no way that she could
have known that she was being discriminated against. The Court, in
effect, eliminated any real opportunity for victims of long-term
gender-based pay discrimination to be made whole and provided employers
who engage in pay discrimination for years to do so without
consequence.
Let's pass this bill.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a
strong and consistent voice for the rights of all people in this
Congress, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague.
Madam Speaker, I rise in full support of H.R. 11. I was extremely
proud last year when the House swiftly acted to pass the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The Supreme Court had made a terribly misguided
decision and failed to fully recognize the rights of women to seek
remedy for pay discrimination.
And how proud I am today that we are wasting no time and again
passing legislation to clarify that victims of pay discrimination
should not be punished because they were not aware of the
discrimination against them earlier.
The Civil Rights Act exists to protect individuals precisely when
they find themselves in the situation Lilly Ledbetter found herself in,
and it was never meant to be interpreted in a way that provides a
loophole for employers to discriminate--if they can just make sure that
their employees are kept in the dark for 6 months.
Lilly Ledbetter will never be compensated for decades of
discrimination by her employer, but let us ensure that none of our
sisters, our daughters, our granddaughters are ever punished in the
same way.
I urge my colleagues the vote yes for the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a strong voice for
civil liberties.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, it's been 46 years since
Congress passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Yet women still earn on
average only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man, and the promise
of pay equity remains unfulfilled. And the Supreme Court's Lilly
Ledbetter decision makes it almost impossible to challenge Federal
discrimination.
This bill will overturn that decision. Last year, the Subcommittee on
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, which I chair,
held a hearing on the Ledbetter case and heard directly from Lilly
Ledbetter who eloquently described the terrible injustice of the
Court's decision.
The Court held that although Ms. Ledbetter had lost thousands of
dollars of pay because of intentional sex discrimination, she could not
sue because the employer had successfully hidden its own misconduct and
discrimination for more than 6 months. This decision makes it almost
impossible to enforce the right to be paid the same regardless of race
or sex, et cetera. This must be changed, and this bill changes that.
The need for the Paycheck Fairness Act is equally clear. Unfair pay
disparities require workers and their families to live on less than
they rightfully deserve and reduce retirement earnings.
I urge adoption of both bills.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct and humble privilege to
yield 1 minute to a person of great strength and dignity and
leadership, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlelady
from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to commend him for his extraordinary leadership, his attention
to this issue of concern to America's families. I thank him, I thank
his chairman, George Miller, for championing this issue in the
committee and on the floor.
And I want to particularly salute Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for
being a relentless advocate. Ten years ago, she introduced the Pay
Equity Act, and she has been working on it for a long time; and over
the years, our ranks have grown of those who recognize the importance
of this legislation.
I am particularly happy today, my colleagues, because on Tuesday we
swore in a new Congress. It was a result of an election where the
American people spoke out very clearly for change. And in the very
first week of this new Congress, the change that we want to make is in
the lives of America's families.
This legislation hits home. It helps America's working women meet the
challenges that their families face economically, and it is about
ending discrimination. So I thank all of our colleagues who worked so
hard over the years to put this forward. We passed it in the House in
the last Congress. We passed the Lilly Ledbetter bill, really a real
tribute to a heroine, a woman who is a heroine. She took her personal
story and she is making change for all working women in American.
That the Supreme Court would have ruled against her after she had won
one
[[Page H120]]
court challenge after another speaks to the need for this legislation.
And the courts have spoken to Congress' ability to change the law if
they do not agree with what the law had been before.
So here we are. This is the day. We campaigned all over the country.
This issue of pay equity and Lilly Ledbetter legislation was part of
the campaign. This woman from Alabama stood before crowds and talked
about her personal experience. It was painful to experience it, yet she
used her own situation to make life better for others. I'm sorry she
cannot be with us here today, but I hope she knows how deeply grateful
we all are to her because her case showcased the need for this
legislation.
And again, in terms of pay equity, I'm a mother of four daughters and
one son; and for all of them, this is important legislation. Many
colleagues in this House--we have many women Members of the House now,
many more we want, but we have fathers of daughters, and those fathers
of daughters know that their daughters are capable of doing anything
they set out to do and that the value that is placed on them in the
workplace is the same value that is placed on young men and men of
whatever age.
So I speak, really, from the heart on this in terms of what it means
to women in their lives, to what it means to women in their homes, what
it means to them in the workplace, what it means to them in their role
in the economy, and what it means to them in their retirement because
if women are not paid fairly in the course of their work years, it has
an impact on their retirement as well.
So for the benefit of our economy--because this has an impact on our
entire economy--I want to salute all who have brought us to this day. I
think it's a happy day for our country, and as Speaker of the House,
I'm particularly pleased that in the first week of the new Congress,
this is the primary legislation that we are putting forward. Pay
equity, fairness to women in the workplace, the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
These are our priorities.
I hope that we will have a big strong vote in the Congress today so
the message will go out that this Congress has heard the message of
change in the election, that this Congress knows the needs of America's
women, that this Congress is prepared to be relevant in its action,
relevant to the concerns of America's working families.
I thank all of you for what you do, and I urge all of our colleagues
to join all of us in supporting this important legislation.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield at this time 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentlelady from Chicago (Ms. Schakowsky) who is the
Democratic leader of the bipartisan Women's Caucus in the House.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of two
critical pieces of legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and
the Paycheck Fairness Act.
It is high time for the United States to end gender discrimination in
the workplace and to start paying women equal pay for an equal day's
work.
As the Democratic co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's
Issues, I'm particularly concerned about how the downturn in the
economy will impact women and their families. Today in the United
States of America, women earn just 78 cents for every dollar earned by
a man. African American women earn just 63 cents on the dollar, and
Latinas earn only 53 cents for each dollar males earn, and single women
earn just 56 cents for every dollar earned by a man.
{time} 1130
These alarming statistics, coupled with the fact that women are
losing their jobs at a frightening rate, makes passing the Equal Pay
Act even more important, and I thank Rosa DeLauro for her leadership on
that legislation.
But the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act provides adequate legal
protections for wage discrimination. Lilly Ledbetter worked for 19
years at a Goodyear Tire plant and was routinely paid less than her
male colleagues, including in her last paycheck. Unfortunately, the
United States Supreme Court, in essence, said to employers, if you can
just keep your underpaid women in the dark for 180 days, then you're
free to deny her fair pay and leave her to attempt to meet her family's
expenses on a salary that denies her rightful payment.
My colleagues, in this 21st century, it's time we made fairness the
law of the land.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of two critical pieces of
legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness
Act. It is high time for the U.S. to end gender discrimination in the
workplace and start paying women equal pay for an equal day's work.
As the Democratic Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's
Issues, I am particularly concerned about how the downturn in the
economy will impact women and their families. Today, in the U.S.A.
women earn just 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man. African
American women earn just 63 cents on the dollar, Latinas earn only 53
cents for each dollar males earn and single women just 56 cents for
every dollar earned by a man. These alarming statistics coupled with
the fact that women are losing their jobs at a frightening rate makes
passing pay equity legislation even more important.
I thank Rosa DeLauro for her leadership on this legislation. The
Paycheck Fairness Act will help put women's wages on par with those of
their male colleagues.
We must also pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to provide
adequate legal protections from wage discrimination. Lilly Ledbetter
worked for 19 years at a Goodyear Tire plant and was routinely paid
less than her male colleagues including her last paycheck.
Unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court in essence compounded this problem
when it overturned the lower court and denied her the right to seek
relief from our legal system by telling her she waited too long to seek
relief even through she had no way of knowing she was paid less. The
Supreme Court's decision means that if an employer discriminates in
paying a women but she isn't aware of it for six months, the employer
can continue to discriminate for years or even decades under an
immunity shield that gives that woman no legal recourse.
In other words, if employers can just keep under paid women in the
dark for 180 days, they are free to deny her fair pay and leave her to
attempt to meet her family's expenses on a salary that denies her
rightful payment. Women should be allowed to seek legal remedies for
employment discrimination and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would
remove existing barriers that prevent women from turning to the courts
for help.
It is time that we help the many women this 21st century. Its time we
make fairness the law of the land.
Finally, I would strongly recommend to all my colleagues if you want
to do the right thing, if you want to be on the side of the women in
your district, and if you do not want to be on the wrong side of
history, cast a proud yes vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act and the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time left on each
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would be pleased to
recognize for 1 minute a gentlelady who once chaired the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, who is the House's leading expert on
this statute, the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for his hard work and for his
leadership.
It's a rare privilege to cosponsor a bill about a law that I once
enforced, but no pleasure at this time because it takes me back to the
future, repeating what Congress did on this floor more than 40 years
ago, permitting only what the act previously enforced, exactly as it
was when I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, both
before and since that time.
The plaintiff in a discrimination suit carries a heavy burden;
Congress never meant it to be an impossible burden. This is secret
information--the pay of your coworkers. There is no way for you to know
that kind of information any more than you know the health condition of
your coworkers. Therefore, what we usually do in enforcement is give an
incentive for the employer to contain his liability through self-
remediation. The moment he finds the problem, he can contain his
liability by in fact correcting the problem. Essentially what the
Supreme Court has done is to perversely invite him to hold out for 180
days, and then it's all over, no matter how much discrimination.
[[Page H121]]
This is a bill that must be passed because it already was passed more
than 40 years ago.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 1
minute to the gentlelady from New York, a leader on the Equal Rights
Amendment Campaign, Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. MALONEY. This is a very important bill for working women in our
country. The bill overturns the unfair Ledbetter decision where five
members of the Supreme Court basically told employers everywhere that
if you can just get away with cheating an employee--usually a woman--
for 6 months and not have them call you on it, you have our permission
to continue to cheat them for the rest of their working life with you,
and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The message is
immoral and against all commonsense. If you cheat and nobody catches
you in the first 6 months, it's okay.
A jury of Ledbetter's peers ruled that in fact she had economically
been discriminated against. The only question was, can someone cheat
you week after week, year after year and receive a get-out-of-jail-free
card if they don't get caught in the first 6 months they cheat?
As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her stinging rebuke to the Supreme
Court, ``The Court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the way in
which women can be victims of pay discrimination.''
It's a very important bill. Thank you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Mr. ANDREW. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
energetic and strong young lady from Florida, my friend, Ms. Wasserman
Schultz.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I met Lilly Ledbetter during a
Judiciary Committee hearing in 2007. She told us then how it was only
after 20 years of working at Goodyear that she learned of the long-
standing pay discrimination against her. Immediately upon learning
this, Lilly took her case to court. But instead of following long-
standing precedent that each new unfair paycheck represented a new
cause of action, the Supreme Court denied Lilly Ledbetter justice.
In the real world, discrimination is subtle and takes years to become
evident. However, Justice Alito ruled that victims have only 180 days
after the start of a discriminatory action to file suit, even if that
employee has no way of knowing about it. This standard is impossible to
meet. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act rights this wrong. It clarifies that
an employee is discriminated against each and every time she receives
an unfair paycheck.
I thank Chairman Miller and Congresswoman DeLauro for their
outstanding leadership on this issue, and for my two beautiful
daughters and the daughters of America, urge my colleagues to support
fair pay in the workplace.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how many further
speakers there are?
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, we have one further speaker, and then we
would anticipate closure from the minority, in which case we would then
close.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to a new Member, who
is already making a very positive mark on this very important issue,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague for giving me 30
seconds.
I think today we right a wrong, a wrong not only about
discrimination, but, frankly, a wrong done in the Supreme Court of the
United States. The convoluted logic employed by a majority on that
Supreme Court is also an injustice we, today, need to overturn. And so
I'm so pleased to cast one of my first votes today on behalf of my
daughter and all of the daughters of America to right this wrong.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, these are serious times. The economy is facing
challenges like none we've faced in decades, and this time those
challenges are on a global scale.
The U.S. Department of Labor released its December jobs report this
morning, and the news is jarring. The U.S. economy shed some 524,000
jobs in the month of December, and total job losses for 2008 have
reached 2.6 million. There are now 11 million Americans out of work,
and the unemployment rate has climbed upward to 7.2 percent, the
highest level since 1993.
The 111th Congress was sworn in this week amid these troubling
indicators. What we do on this floor has the potential to help, but it
also has the potential to harm. What we do here makes a difference,
substantively, of course, but also symbolically. And what signal does
it send to the Nation and the world that the first substantive order of
business of the 111th Congress is not job creation or tax relief or
economic stimulus, but, rather, a trial lawyer boondoggle that could
put jobs and worker pensions in jeopardy.
We should have done better, and perhaps we could have done better if
we had taken the time to craft a bipartisan bill, or if we would have
had an open debate process that allowed all Members of this body to
contribute in a thoughtful way.
Had this truly been a narrow fix, as its supporters would have the
American people believe, this rush to approval may not have been such a
problem. However, this is a major fundamental change to civil rights
law, and no less than four separate statutes.
The last change to civil rights law of this magnitude, the 1991 Civil
Rights Act, took 2 years of negotiation, debate and partisan accord to
accomplish. Instead, what we have before us is a partisan product that
is fundamentally flawed. It guts the statute of limitations contained
in current law, and in doing so would allow an employee to bring a
claim against an employer decades after the alleged initial act of
discrimination occurred. Trial lawyers, you can be sure, are salivating
at this very prospect.
Madam Speaker, this is a bad bill that is the result of an equally
bad process. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Madam Speaker, Lilly Ledbetter won an award for being the best at her
job in her company. She was woefully underpaid compared to the men
along whom's side she worked doing the same job. She said that she was
underpaid because she was a woman, the employer said she was underpaid
because she wasn't as good at her job. So they both went before a jury
of their peers in Alabama, and the jury unanimously decided that Ms.
Ledbetter was right and the employer was wrong, and they decided that
she should be financially compensated for that wrong. But then she got
an unwelcome surprise, that because she hadn't acted at precisely the
right moment, because she hadn't acted against a wrong she did not know
existed yet, because she did not have the power of a stance, she could
not file her claim.
The Supreme Court, with all due respect, turned this law into a trap
and a game. Today, we are recorrecting that law, restoring the notion
that when a woman goes to work in this country, she should be
compensated on how good she is at her job, not her gender. Vote ``yes''
on this bill.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker. I am pleased to rise today to join with
my colleagues in passing H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Ms. Ledbetter worked at Goodyear for over 19 years, retiring as a
supervisor in 1998. Unbeknownst to Ms. Ledbetter during her time at
Goodyear she earned 20 percent less in salary and a smaller pension
than the lowest-paid male supervisor. While a jury found in Ms.
Ledbetter's favor, agreeing that she had been discriminated against and
awarding her $3.8 million in back pay, the Supreme Court did not agree.
In 2007, the Supreme Court overturned this decision finding that Ms.
Ledbetter made her claim too late. This decision ignored the fact that
Ms. Ledbetter filed her charge within 180 days of a discriminatory
paycheck from Goodyear, which is in line with the 180 days requirement
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Today this Congress has an opportunity to pass this legislation that
will not only help Lilly Ledbetter recover the wages she rightly
deserved, but it will ensure that the women who come after Ms.
Ledbetter will not have to suffer her same fate. Under this bill every
paycheck or other compensation that is discriminatory in nature would
restart the clock for filing a charge. Furthermore, it entitles
employers up to two years of back pay, unlike the 180 days of back pay
given to Ms. Ledbetter.
[[Page H122]]
During today's economy more and more families are relying on two
paychecks to put dinner on the table, buy school supplies for their
children or visit the doctor. A smaller paycheck not only hurts female
employees who deserve proper compensation, but the families they also
must provide for. I urge my colleagues, to join with me in supporting
both this bill. A vote in favor will go a long way in ensuring our
daughters and granddaughters are treated as equals in the workplace.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11), which is the
first of two bills the House will consider today focused on ensuring
fair and equal pay for women in our workforce.
By now, most of us have heard the heartrending story of Lily
Ledbetter. Despite being intentionally paid 20 percent less than her
male colleagues for 19 year, Ms. Ledbetter was denied damages by
Supreme Court. In its May 27, 2007, the Court, by a narrow majority,
ruled that because Ms. Ledbetter failed to file a claim within 180 days
of the initial discriminatory action, she had missed her opportunity to
challenge her employer.
Thankfully, we have the opportunity today to overturn the Supreme
Court's egregious decision by approving the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay
Act. This legislation clarifies that each discriminatory paycheck
represents a new act of discrimination and therefore restarts the 180
day statute of limitation. By restoring the law to as it was prior to
the Supreme Court's ruling, we will ensure that women, such as Lily
Ledbetter, who are unknowingly discriminated against for years retain
the legal right to challenge their employer and obtain compensation for
the discrimination that they have endured.
Madam Speaker, the legislation before us today does nothing more than
restore common sense to the laws that protect our nation's women from
discrimination. I urge all of my colleagues to fully support it.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 11,
``The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.'' The time has come for the
Congress to reverse the wrongheaded and discriminatory Supreme Court
case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Co. If left intact, this case will
not only continue to undermine the validity of our Nation's gender
discrimination laws, but also laws that prevent employer discrimination
based on race, religion, national origin, disability, or age.
Madam Speaker, I was shocked when I heard the story of Lilly
Ledbetter, the Goodyear Tire plant employee who suffered from pay
discrimination for nearly two decades. After learning that she had been
victimized by her employer, she brought an Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission complaint against Goodyear. Unfortunately, in 2007, a
majority of our anti-worker, pro-corporate Supreme Court denied her
claim, ruling that employees must file a wage-discrimination complaint
within 180 days of the very first discriminatory payroll decision. This
means that in order to have her day in court, Ms. Ledbetter would have
needed to file suit in 1979, even though there was no way she could
have known that discrimination was occurring at that point. And even
though each successive payroll left her with fewer dollars than her
equally qualified colleagues, the Justices of the Supreme Court argued
that Ms. Ledbetter had missed her chance at justice.
Ms. Ledbetter, a clear victim of discrimination, was left without
recourse in a country founded on a respect for the rule of law. For
this, we should be ashamed.
Adding insult to injury, federal and state courts packed with
conservative jurists have taken the precedent created by the Roberts
Court's Ledbetter decision and expanded upon its logic--for the sole
purpose of undermining a wide range of antidiscrimination laws. Because
statues which prevent discrimination are extremely similar in form to
one another, it has been extremely easy for these jurists to employ the
logic found in a gender discrimination case like Goodyear to
disenfranchise claimants seeking redress under provisions of the Civil
Rights Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Immigration Reform
and Control Act, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and many
other laws aimed at ending anti-discrimination.
If enacted, this bill will clarify that each paycheck resulting from
a discriminatory pay decision is a new violation of employment
nondiscrimination law. As long as a worker files a charge within 180
days of a discriminatory paycheck, the charge would be considered
timely.
Madam Speaker, I believe that our courts are our last line of defense
when it comes to protecting the fundamental rights enshrined in our
Constitution and in our civil rights laws. With our marketplace and
court systems unwilling to correct obvious injustices, we need a
legislative solution that will ensure that the universal values of
fairness, respect, and decency continue to be a part of the American
workplace. For the sake of ``equal pay for equal work'' and the
continued utility of all of our federal discrimination laws, I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11, which addresses gender-based
wage discrimination. This is a historic day in the fight for equal
rights for women, and I would like to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi and
House leaders for making pay equity for women among the first votes in
the 111th Congress.
Families are struggling with the current economic crisis, making it
more important than ever that women, who are often the head of the
household and make up nearly half the workforce, are compensated fairly
and equitably. Leading the legislative session with measures to reverse
gender-based wage bias is a clear signal of the level of commitment
American families can expect from this Congress.
The disastrous economic policies of the Bush administration failed to
address major workforce equity issues over the last eight years. It is
unacceptable that on average, women only make 78 cents for every dollar
earned by a man, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That could mean a
difference of $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages.
Furthermore, the wage disparity grows wider as women age and threatens
their economic security, retirement, and quality of life. The new
Congress and the incoming administration must act quickly to protect
America's workers from wage-discrimination.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act seeks to level the playing field
between men and women. This bill is named for a woman who worked for
nearly two decades at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber facility in Alabama.
She sued the company when she learned that she was the lowest-paid
supervisor at the plant, despite having more experience than several of
her male counterparts. 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. This legislation will restore the intent of the Civil
Rights Act before the Supreme Court decision and will keep employers
from being able to run out the clock by keeping discriminatory
practices hidden.
There is no question that our top priority is to get Americans and
our economy working again. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act recognizes
that equal pay is not only an issue of fairness for women, but also one
of fairness for working families. In these tough economic times, this
bill could make all the difference for working families to make ends
meet in their everyday lives. Through these efforts we can help give
families the resources they need to give their children a better
future. Pay equity should not be a benefit that needs to be bargained
for, it is a promise that the government must ensure.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill to ensure economic security
for women, their families, and our communities. Through this
legislation we can ensure a better future for our daughters
granddaughters, and generations to come.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 11, the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. As an original cosponsor of this bill, I
am pleased to see this legislation on the House floor today.
H.R. 11 would correct an injustice and break down barriers to equal
pay. From 1979 until 1998, Lilly Ledbetter worked as a supervisor for
the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Although Ledbetter initially
received a salary similar to the salaries paid to her male colleagues,
a pay disparity developed over time. By 1997, the pay disparity between
Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts had widened considerably, to the
point that Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month while the lowest paid
male colleague received $4,286 per month and the highest-paid male
colleague received $5,236 per month. An anonymous note informed Ms.
Ledbetter of this discrimination, which had been going on for years,
and she immediately filed a complaint in 1998. A jury found in her
favor, but, in a misguided Supreme Court decision, the jury's verdict
was overturned. According to the Supreme Court, her complaint was too
late.
This decision makes it more difficult for employees to sue for pay
discrimination under Title VII, which was not the intent of Congress
when the title was written into law. H.R. 11 would clarify that the
statute of limitations for suing employers for pay discrimination
begins each time they issue a paycheck and is not limited to the
original discriminatory action. This change would be applicable not
only to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but also to the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill to protect
women like Lilly Ledbetter from taking their case for equal pay all the
way to the Supreme Court, to support single mothers who may worry
whether or not
[[Page H123]]
they are being treated fairly by their employers while they provide for
their children, and to ensure that daughters entering college can reach
their full potential when they graduate.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court's recent decision in
Ledbetter v. Goodyear was a giant step backwards for America in its
commitment to fairness and equality. It is hard to believe that at the
end of the first decade of the 21st century, our country is still
struggling with gender based employment and wage equity. The Ledbetter
decision made a legal remedy for this discriminatory practice
considerably more difficult.
As Justice Ginsberg pointed out in her dissent, the decision counsels
women to sue early on, ``when it is uncertain whether discrimination
accounts for the pay disparity you are beginning to experience. Indeed,
initially you may not know that men are receiving more for
substantially similar work. Of course, you are likely to lose such a
less than fully baked case. If you sue only when the pay disparity
becomes steady and large enough to enable you to mount a winnable case,
you will be cut off at the court's threshold for suing too late.''
Under this precedent, evidence of an employer knowingly carrying past
pay discrimination forward must be treated as lawful. This was clearly
not the intent of the legislation.
Today's legislation attempts to remedy the destructive effects of the
Court's actions. Under this bill, each sex-based discriminatory salary
payment constitutes a new violation of Title VII. As a result, if an
individual uncovers a sex based discriminatory act related to
compensation that has been going on for years, like Ms. Ledbetter, that
individual can seek redress.
If we oppose discrimination in compensation then we must provide a
legal recourse for those who have been discriminated against. The Fair
Pay Act effectively restores this just and necessary remedy.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of H.R.
11, The Lilly Ledbetter Act. This legislation was passed by the House
in the 110th Congress and we should pass it again today so the Senate
can act swiftly and get this important initiative signed into law.
Mrs. Ledbetter was a victim of a system gone awry. When she was hired
as a supervisor at Goodyear's tire assembly department in Gadsden,
Alabama, her wages were exactly on par with those of a male employee
working by her side. Mrs. Ledbetter didn't know her first paychecks
matched her co-workers' paychecks. She just assumed they did.
Then, in 1998, an anonymous note informed her that her annual salary
was lagging $15,000 behind a certain male co-worker. In fact, she was
being paid less than all her male counterparts in the tire assembly
department, even recent hires.
Within a month after receiving the note, Ledbetter filed a
discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
But Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights imposes a six-month limitation
period on discriminatory acts; Ledbetter's evidence was limited to
events that took place after Sept. 26, 1997, or 180 days prior to her
EEOC charge.
In November of 1998, she filed suit to determine and recoup her
losses. Goodyear said Ledbetter's poor job performance was to blame.
But she prevailed and was awarded nearly $4 million in pay and punitive
damages, which the judge reduced to $360,000. Of course, Goodyear
appealed, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' unanimous opinion
tossed out the award and dismissed Ledbetter's complaint altogether.
In 2007, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld
the 11th Circuit's decision, finding that the limitations period for a
disparate pay claim cannot be extended or disregarded. But how can a
claim be filed if there is no knowledge of the discriminatory act?
Congress must now act on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting
comment that she read from the bench: ``the ball is in Congress's
court,'' and ``correct this parsimonious reading of Title VII.'' I
agree with Justice Ginsburg; this court ``does not comprehend, or is
indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay
discrimination.''
Colleagues, let us pass this bill and correct this gross inequity.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, today, I am
pleased to speak about two bills that will go a long way towards
establishing gender equity in American workplaces. The Paycheck
Fairness Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will help close the
legal loopholes and restore the initial intent of our civil rights
laws.
It has been 45 years since the passage of the landmark Equal Pay Act
of 1963, and while pay disparities have narrowed, a strong wage
disparity still exists. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau
women still make only 78 cents on the dollar to their male
counterparts.
We cannot deny that this gender disparity exists, and it is essential
that we close the loopholes that allow it to continue. The Paycheck
Fairness Act increases enforcement and accountability in cases of
discrimination, and provides relief for women who face retaliation for
standing up for equal pay. It also requires the Department of Labor to
increase their efforts to end pay disparities.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a longstanding prior law
making it increasingly difficult for workers to pursue legal remedies
for pay discrimination. Today we will work to restore the intent of the
Civil Rights Act through passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
We will no longer unfairly turn back to the clock on discrimination
claims. An incident of pay discrimination occurs each time a worker
receives a lesser paycheck because of their gender, and we must treat
it as such. We can no longer distort the intent of the law to protect
those who seek to discriminate.
These bills are not only for women, but for children and families.
For the millions of working mothers in America--many of whom are heads
of households--it offers financial stability. This wage disparity is
costing women between $400,000 and $2 million over a lifetime.
Lower wages factor into long-term financial planning. Retirement and
Social Security are based on income. Retirement aged women today are
far less likely to receive a pension, and rely on Social Security
benefits to survive. The wage discrimination women are facing today
will continue to follow them well into retirement.
We cannot continue to simply accept this disparity, and the Paycheck
Fairness Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act are strong statements
that this type of discrimination will not be tolerated. I would like to
thank Congresswoman DeLauro and Chairman Miller for offering these
important pieces of legislation, and commend the Democratic leadership
for bringing these bills to the floor.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to support two
important workplace civil rights bills addressing pay discrimination--
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. In the
years since the 1963 Equal Pay Act, women have made enormous advances
toward economic equality. However, the goal of ``equal pay for equal
work'' is not yet reality.
Today, the average full-time working woman earns only 78 cents for
every $1 a man makes. Women of color are worse off. African-American
women make 69 cents on the dollar, while Hispanic women make only 56
cents. A recent study of college graduates showed that in their first
year after graduation, women earned only 80 percent as much as male
graduates, demonstrating the gender pay disparities only compound over
time.
These pay disparities equal a significant loss of income--anywhere
from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime--which has a tremendous
impact on lives of women and their families, especially as so many are
struggling with the economic turndown.
In 2007, the Supreme Court made it virtually impossible for victims
of pay discrimination to go to court to vindicate their rights, holding
that any challenges to pay discrimination must be filed within 180 days
of an employer's initial decision to discriminate. The Lilly Ledbetter
Fair Pay Act will overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v.
Goodyear Fire & Rubber Co., and restore the long-standing
interpretation of civil rights laws that employees can file pay
discrimination claims within 180 clays of each discriminatory paycheck
they receive.
The Paycheck Fairness Act strengthens the Equal Pay Act to ensure
that it provides effective protection against sex-based pay
discrimination by closing loopholes and barring retaliation against
workers who disclose their wages. Additionally, it also allows women to
receive the same remedies for sex-based pay discrimination that are
currently available to those subject to discrimination based on race
and national origin.
This meaningful legislation will help further advance American women
and families' economic security and I am proud to support both.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I salute the
extraordinary work of Chairman Miller and Congresswoman DeLauro to
bring these important bills to the floor today.
Lilly Ledbetter worked for nearly 20 years at a Goodyear Tire and
Rubber facility in Alabama. After 20 years, she received an anonymous
note alerting her to pay discrimination against her. She learned that
she was the lowest-paid supervisor at the plant, despite having more
experience than many of her male counterparts. For 20 years she worked
hard and played by the rules only to be paid less and treated unfairly.
She then sued Goodyear for pay discrimination. A jury of her peers
found that her employer had unlawfully discriminated against her on the
basis of sex and awarded her back pay. Her case was appealed and
[[Page H124]]
reached the Supreme Court which held 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 the anonymous note. The Supreme Court said that under Federal
fair pay laws a person must file a discrimination claim within 180 days
of the first violation.
Today our opponents will say that this bill is a trial lawyer's dream
and that it will bring unnecessary litigation. This is simply not true.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores the law as it was prior to
the Supreme Court's decision. Prior law was fair and worked. Before the
Court's ruling, the law was clear--every discriminatory paycheck was a
new violation of the law that restarted the clock for filing a claim.
Under the Supreme Court's ruling, the Ledbetter decision allows
employers to escape responsibility by keeping their discrimination
hidden and running out the clock.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act clarifies that each new paycheck
resulting from a discriminatory pay decision constitutes a new
violation of employment nondiscrimination law. As long as a worker
files a charge within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, the charge
would be considered timely.
This is what the law was and what it should be going forward. I'm
very proud to support this bill and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the
underlying legislation.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of pay equity.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear was absurd. If I
broke the law for nearly two decades--as the Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company did when they stiffed Lilly Ledbetter out of the pay she
deserved for 19 years--I couldn't turn around and say that I didn't owe
anything because no one caught me during the first 6 months. Yet that's
exactly what the Supreme Court allowed Goodyear to say to Ms.
Ledbetter.
The existing law is unfair. Many workers don't even discover that
they're being discriminated against until the existing 180-day statute
of limitations has passed. In every other area of American tort law,
the clock restarts with every new violation. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair
Pay Act simply fixes existing law so that sex discrimination is treated
the same way.
My Republican colleagues love to call up the ``frivolous lawsuits''
bogeyman to scare hard-working Americans out of their rights, but
there's nothing frivolous about equality and justice. The wage gap in
the United States has remained stagnant over the last 7 years. Women in
the United States still make less than 78 cents for every dollar a man
makes. Women of color have it even worse: African-American women earn
only 68.7 cents and Latin American women 59 cents for every dollar an
American man makes.
That's why I'm a co-sponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and
why I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in passing this
important legislation. American workers deserve better. They deserve
equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity,
religion, and sexual and gender orientation. When they don't get it,
they deserve their day in court.
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 11, the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Although I join my colleagues in
steadfast opposition to pay discrimination, this ill-advised, over-
reaching, and disingenuous overhaul of civil rights law is the wrong
approach.
Pay discrimination is not a partisan issue. Pay discrimination
strikes at the heart of the American Dream. For more than 40 years, the
1963 Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has made
it illegal for employers to determine an employee's pay scale based on
his or her gender. I wholeheartedly agree and support these laws. Every
American should be able to work hard, and make a living for his or her
family. We can not tolerate gender discrimination in the workplace.
This legislation, however, is about bad politics rather than good
policy. H.R. 11 was supposedly written to remedy a sad situation for
one person--Lilly Ledbetter. She was apparently paid significantly less
than her counterparts at Goodyear Tire Company during her tenure there.
Decades later Ms. Ledbetter filed a claim of discrimination. Taking her
claim through the courts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 29, 2007
that the statute of limitations had unfortunately run out.
Instead of simply restoring prior law, by overturning a Supreme Court
ruling against Ms. Ledbetter, in reality, Democrats will gut a decades-
old statute of limitations that prevents the filing of ``stale'' claims
and protects against abuse of the legal system. Current law rightly
provides a statute of limitations to file a discrimination claim, up to
300 days after the alleged workplace discrimination occurred. Under
this bill, however, employees or retirees could sue for pay
discrimination years, even decades, after the alleged discrimination.
How can a company defend itself when the accused offenders left the
company decades before? The answer is--they can't. And that is exactly
the answer desired by the trial lawyers who support this legislation.
This legislation will not end pay discrimination, but it will certainly
encourage frivolous claims and lawsuits. It is inevitable that under
this legislation employees will sue companies for reasons that have
little if anything to do with the accused discrimination.
Madam Speaker, the issue of pay discrimination is too important to
consider this poorly crafted, politically motivated piece of
legislation. As much as we sympathize with Ms. Ledbetter, H.R. 11 is
bad legislation. Let us instead join together, work in a bipartisan
manner, to address pay discrimination while not destroying decades-
worth of solid employment discrimination law. Until then, I ask my
colleagues to join with me in opposing this legislation.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the H.R. 11, the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
For nearly 20 years, Lilly Ledbetter worked at a Goodyear Tire
facility in Alabama. After learning that she was the lowest paid
supervisor--earning 20 percent less than the lowest paid, least
experienced man in the same position at Goodyear--she sued the company
for pay discrimination. On May 29, 2007, after a series of cases and
appeals, the Supreme Court handed down a disturbing 5-4 ruling that
fundamentally rewrote protections that American workers have enjoyed
for more than 40 years when they were codified in the Civil Rights Act
of 1964.
According to Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the flawed decision,
when Ms. Ledbetter failed to file a discrimination case within the
statutorily provided 180 days from the initial decision to pay her less
than her male colleagues, she was barred from filing a complaint and no
relief was available. Despite documenting the sex based evaluation
system Goodyear managers used, Lilly Ledbetter was denied justice and
the rights afforded to her under the Civil Rights Act.
Justice Alito's opinion runs contrary to decades of civil rights law,
and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Act would restore the law as it was prior
to the Court's ill considered decision. This bill would make it clear
that when it comes to discriminatory pay, the protections of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act extend not
only to these discriminatory pay decisions and practices but to every
paycheck that results from those pay decisions and practices.
As an original cosponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, I urge
my colleagues to support its passage, and I encourage the Senate to
work quickly to send it to the President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to section 5(a) of House Resolution 5, the bill is
considered read and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this bill will be postponed.
____________________