WASHINGTON--Senate Republicans succeeded late yesterday in blocking Democratic legislation rolling back a Supreme Court ruling cutting the length of time a worker has to file a pay discrimination suit.

But the issue is likely to return, if not this year, then next year as part of the effort by Democrats to show differences between themselves and Republicans on a key worker issue.

The legislation that failed is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (S. 1843) concerning suits involving pay discrimination based on race, sex, religion or national origin.

"Women of America: Put your lipstick on, square your shoulders, suit up" and get ready to fight, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., said moments after the bill's opponents denied supporters the 60 votes needed to proceed to full debate and a vote on passage. "The revolution starts tonight."

As Ms. Mikulski's comments implied, the vote was symbolic, because Democrats were aware of strong business opposition to the bill, as well as a veto threat from the White House.

The 56-42 vote was largely along party lines. Six Republicans--all but one up for reelection--joined all but one of the Democrats and independents in attempting to block the filibuster, which required 60 votes for success. Two Republicans, including the party's likely presidential nominee, John McCain of Arizona, did not vote.

The original vote was 57-42, but Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., changed his vote in order to keep open the possibility of asking for a revote.

The American Benefits Council, which represents employers on legislative and regulatory issues in Washington, D.C., sent a letter to all members of the Senate before the vote urging them to reject the bill in its present form.

The letter said the proposed bill could raise "serious retirement plan issues" that the organization said it believed are unresolved as the legislation is currently worded.

The letter said that under the bill, each payment of compensation benefits that is lower as a result of past discrimination is deemed a new act of discrimination. "Thus, an employee could file a charge or sue many years after the original action giving rise to the claim actually occurred," the letter explained.

Even though efforts were made to fix some problems dealing with retirement issues the industry had raised about the original bill, other issues remained, the letter said.

"The underlying significant concern as to how a judgment in favor of a plaintiff would affect an employer-sponsored retirement plan still remains unaddressed and raises several questions," the letter added.

The bill passed the House in July, 225-199, and was intended to undo a May 2007 Supreme Court decision involving Lily Ledbetter.

Ms. Ledbetter was a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala., who sued for pay discrimination just before retiring after a 19-year career there. By the time she retired, Ledbetter made $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor and she claimed earlier decisions by her supervisors kept her from making more.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to deny her complaint, ruling that she had waited too long to sue. Under the justices' decision, which they said was based on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 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.

The high court's ruling, said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., leaves a "gaping loophole" in civil rights laws.

"Our legislation closes this loophole by making clear that as long as the discrimination continues, a worker's right to challenge it continues as well," he said.

In a statement, the White House said "the bill far exceeds the stated purpose of undoing the court's decision," and could effectively waive the statute of limitations in such cases and burden courts with claims.

Special Reports /

Battle Over Pay Discrimination Suits Heats Up In Congress

Related Stories

Recommended For You