Bill Statistics

The Middle Class Position

The middle class supports.

How They Voted

53% with middle class
45% against middle class
2% did not vote
Pie Chart

Grades

Grade C
Senate

The Senate receives a grade of C for its support of the middle class on this piece of legislation.

56 Senators voted for the middle-class position; 42 voted against.

Grade C
House

The House receives a grade of C for its support of the middle class on this piece of legislation.

225 Representatives voted for the middle-class position; 199 voted against.

H.R. 2831

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007

Introduced:
06.22.2007 [House]
Senate: Yea-56, Nay-42
House: Yea-225, Nay-199
Failed a procedural vote in the Senate which required a 60-vote supermajority: 04.23.08
The Legislation: 

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other anti-discrimination laws to clarify at which points in time discriminatory actions qualify as an “unlawful employment practice.” According to the legislation, unlawful conduct occurs when: “(1) a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted; (2) an individual becomes subject to the decision or practice; or (3) an individual is affected by application of the decision or practice, including each time compensation is paid.” The law further states that individuals may receive back pay as compensation for discrimination that occurred up to two years preceding the filing of a charge.

The Middle-Class Position: 

The Middle Class Supports. Current and aspiring middle-class Americans need the protection of strong anti-discrimination laws to ensure that they are treated fairly by employers. But the mere existence of these laws is not sufficient: the practical ability to enforce them in a meaningful way is crucial. By clarifying a technicality in employment discrimination law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act deters discriminatory practices in the workplace and ensures that when discrimination does occur, wronged employees can receive fair compensation.

This legislation clarifies that employment discrimination law should be interpreted the way courts have traditionally understood it – until the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a more restrictive interpretation in the 2007 Ledbetter V. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. decision. In this case, the Court ruled that plaintiff Lilly Ledbetter was not eligible for compensation despite years of being paid far less than her male peers and even some male subordinates. According the Court, unlawful discrimination had occurred only when her employer first set the discriminatory pay rate, even though Ledbetter had no way of knowing about it until years later. Under this ruling, since Ledbetter’s employer was able to conceal the discrimination for years and she did not find out about the discrimination until it was too late to file a complaint (within 180 days of the first discriminatory paycheck, according to the Court), she had no legal recourse. By reaffirming that a fresh discrimination offense occurs each time an individual is impacted by a discriminatory practice, including each paycheck that includes unfair compensation, this legislation effectively reverses the Supreme Court’s harmful decision and ensures that people subjected to discrimination in the future will continue to have effective recourse to the law.

From the Experts: 

“Under the Court’s decision, the discrimination Ledbetter proved is not redressable under Title VII. Each and every pay decision she did not immediately challenge wiped the slate clean. Consideration may not be given to the cumulative effect of a series of decisions that, together, set her pay well below that of every male area manager. Knowingly carrying past pay discrimination forward must be treated as lawful conduct. Ledbetter may not be compensated for the lower pay she was in fact receiving when she complained to the EEOC…The Court’s approbation of these consequences is totally at odds with the robust protection against workplace discrimination Congress intended Title VII to secure… Once again, the ball is in Congress’ court.” –Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissenting opinion in Ledbetter V. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (May 29, 2007)

“This legislation reflects the reality of the American workplace, that most of us just don’t know our coworkers’ salaries relative to our own. In fact, many employers prohibit workers from discussing their salaries, making it that much more difficult to uncover wage discrimination. Employers who pay their workers unequally should not be allowed a ‘get out of jail free’ card because they’re able to keep the decision to discriminate secret for more than 180 days. The ACLU applauds the House of Representatives for its support of this legislation.”-Caroline Fredrickson, Director, the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office (July 31, 2007)

Beyond this Bill: 

The effective right to sue an employer is vital for combating discrimination – especially since the fear of lawsuits can deter discriminatory conduct from occurring in the first place. But the courts are a last resort, not the primary means of regulatory enforcement. In order for middle-class Americans to live and work unencumbered by bias, the Department of Labor must more vigorously enforce anti-discrimination law.

Maine New Hampshire Vermont Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware Maryland West Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida Alabama Mississippi Tennessee Virginia Kentucky Ohio Indiana Michigan Illinois Wisconsin Louisiana Arkansas Missouri Iowa Minnesota Oklahoma Kansas Nebraska South Dakota North Dakota Texas Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Wyoming Hawaii Alaska Montana Nevada Idaho California Oregon Washington