Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Mass.
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
N.Carolina
N.Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
S.Carolina
S.Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
W.Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Law Firm Website Design Companies : The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly


The House voted Tuesday to reverse the Supreme Court's decision limiting the time that workers have to sue their employers for pay discrimination. The Bush administration has threatened to veto the legislation, pushed almost entirely by Democrats. The House voted 225-199 to restart the statute of limitations for pay discrimination lawsuits each time an employee gets a paycheck affected by sexism or racism, repudiating a decision by the high court's five most conservative justices.

"Discrimination has no place in our law, no place in our hearts and no place because of technicalities," said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 on May 29 to throw out a Goodyear employee's complaint that she earned thousands of dollars less than her male counterparts because of discrimination.

Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala., sued right before she retired. She ended a 19-year career making $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor, and claimed earlier decisions by her supervisors kept her from making more.

The court said she had waited too long to sue. Under the justices' decision, which they said was based on congressional legislation, an employee must sue within a 180-day deadline of a decision involving pay if the employee thinks it involved race, sex, religion or national origin.

That opens the door for corporations to discriminate, Democrats said. "If you can get away with it for 180 days, you're home free," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chair of the House Education and Labor Committee.

The Democrats' legislation would allow employees to sue within 180 days of their last affected paychecks. Senate Democrats are working on a similar bill.

Ledbetter, who will not be helped by the legislation, said she hopes it helps other people. "I just want to open the doors for women in the future so they can be treated fairly," she said in an interview.

The White House has threatened to veto the bill, and has enough votes in the House to make it stick.

The legislation "would allow employees to bring a claim of pay or other employment-related discrimination years or even decades after the alleged discrimination occurred," the White House said.

"Employers would be forced to defend against an avalanche of decades-old, frivolous claims. The anticipated increase in legal and record- keeping costs could be staggering," said Jay Timmons, the National Association of Manufacturers' senior vice president for policy and government relations.

House Republicans also said the measure was designed to benefit trial lawyers _ a Democratic constituency _ by giving them a new forum for thousands of lawsuits.

"Trial lawyers, you can be sure, are salivating at this prospect," said Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon of California, the ranking Republican on the Education and Labor Committee.

"The majority on the Supreme Court bent over backwards, ignoring both precedent and simple common sense, to rob (Ledbetter) of her right to equal treatment in the workplace," AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said. "The legislation passed today remedies that inequity and once again makes it possible for victims of discrimination to take their cases to court and receive fair hearings and just compensation."



Legal News | Breaking News | Terms & Conditions | Privacy | Law Firm Web Design by Law Promo

ⓒ Breaking Legal News. All Rights Reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by BLN as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case.
   More Legal News
   Legal Spotlight
   Exclusive Commentaries
   Attorney & Blog - Blog Watch
   Law Firm News  1  2  3  4  5  6 
   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
San Francisco Trademark Lawyer
San Francisco Copyright Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
New Rochelle Accidents Attorneys
New Rochelle Personal Injury
www.kboattorneys.com
Chicago Business Lawyer
Cook County Contract Law
www.rothlawgroup.com
Canton Criminal Lawyer
Canton DUI lawyer
www.cantoncriminalattorney.com
Surry County Criminal Defense Lawyers
Yadkin County Family Law Attorneys
www.dirussolaw.com
Oregon DUI Law Attorney
Eugene DUI Lawyer. Criminal Defense Law
www.mjmlawoffice.com
Palm Beach Construction Law Attorney
Florida Construction Law
Wellington Construction Law
palmbeachconstructionlaw.org
Houston Car Accident Attorneys
Wrongful Death Attorneys Houston
Houston Wrongful Death
New York Adoption Lawyers
New York Foster Care Lawyers
Adoption Pre-Certification
www.lawrsm.com
Santa Ana Workers' Compensation Lawyers
www.gentryashtonlaw.com
Indianapolis personal injury lawyer
Brain injury lawyer Indianapolis
www.rwp-law.com
Eugene Bankruptcy Attorney
Bankruptcy Attorney Eugene
willamettevalleybankruptcy.com
   More Legal News  1  2  3  4  5  6
   Legal News Links
  Click The Law
  Daily Bar News
  The Legal Voice
  The Legal Report
  Legal News Post
  Crisis Legal News
  Legal News Journal
  Law Firm Logos
  Eugene Criminal Defense Law
  Attorney Web Design
  Immigration Law Web Design
  Law Firm Directory