The House overwhelmingly passed legislation reversing a Supreme Court decision that severely limited workers' ability to sue their employers over sex-based wage discrimination in early January.

The bill, H.R. 11, restores the law prior to the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, according to officials of the House Education & Labor Committee. The bill passed 247-171.

The House then passed the Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 12, which prohibits sex discrimination in the form of unequal pay for equal work. The vote was 256-163.

“Today we face a transformational moment,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., chief sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act. “With a new Congress, a new administration, we have a chance to finally provide equal pay for equal work and make opportunity real for millions of American women.”

Republicans argued that the two bills would foster lawsuits against businesses and mainly benefit trial lawyers.

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California, senior Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, said that passage of the two bills sends a signal “that the first substantive order of business is not job creation or tax relief but rather a trial lawyer boondoggle that can put jobs and worker pensions in jeopardy.”

Under the Supreme Court's Ledbetter ruling, if an employee does not file a claim within 180 days of their employer's decision to pay them less, they are barred forever from challenging the discriminatory paychecks that follow.

The Ledbetter bill is now in the Senate where action was expected soon, so that President Barack Obama could sign the bill shortly after his inauguration.

The Senate, however, had not acted on the matter at press time. For updates on Senate action, check NU's Online News Service.

The bill failed to pass the Senate last year by three votes to win the 60 votes necessary to shut off a Republican filibuster aimed at blocking the House-passed bill.

President Obama made reversing the Supreme Court decision a big campaign issue last year.

The paycheck bill is a priority of former New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who in January became U.S. Secretary of State. The timing of Senate action is unclear.

The Equal Pay Act prohibits sex discrimination in the form of unequal pay for equal work.

Under current law, employers can avoid liability if they can prove that the alleged discrimination comparison was a result of any factor other than sex.

Under the Equal Pay Act, employers could only rely on this affirmative defense where the factors other than sex are job-related or serve a legitimate business interest.

Additionally, the proposed legislation clarifies that, for the purpose of demonstrating discrimination, a plaintiff can use compensation comparisons of employees who do not even work at the same physical place of business as the plaintiffs. Courts do not construe the current Equal Pay Act so broadly.

The Act also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information. Finally, the Act increases civil penalties against employers who violate it, makes it easier to bring class actions, and authorizes the Secretary of Labor to seek additional compensatory or punitive damages.

The Ledbetter bill, reversing the court decision, passed the House last year but stalled in the Senate due to Republican concerns and comments by the Bush administration that President Bush would veto the measure if it passed Congress.

The current bill has raised deep concerns in the insurance industry over its potential liability for employers as administrators of pension plans.

In a letter sent to House officials, the American Benefits Council thanked bill drafters for modifying the bill at the industry's request to include a provision designed to ensure the bill is not intended to change the current law treatment of when pension distributions are considered paid.

But, despite the changes, James Klein, ABC president, said in the letter that the trade group remains concerned the legislation could be interpreted to allow an individual who has been retired for many years to file a charge or sue based on acts that occurred during his or her active service, but when few, if any, people involved in the alleged discrimination are available to discuss the facts and circumstances of the case.

The letter implied the industry will continue to work as the bill reaches the Senate to win inclusion of language that deals with that concern in order “to prevent confusion.”

Under the bill, every paycheck or other compensation resulting, in whole or in part, from an earlier discriminatory pay decision or other practice would constitute a violation of Title VII, which guards against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin and religion, officials of the House Education and Labor Committee said in a summary of the bill's provisions.

In other words, each discriminatory paycheck would restart the clock for filing a charge under the legislation, its drafters said.

“As long as workers file their charges within 180 days (or 300 days in some jurisdictions) of a discriminatory paycheck, their charges will be considered timely,” the summary of provisions said.

Its chief sponsor, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said, “Since the Ledbetter decision can impact pay discrimination claims under other statutes, the bill ensures that these simple reforms extend to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act to provide the same protections for victims of age and disability discrimination.”

Special Reports /

House Votes Reversal Of Supreme Court Rule On Wage Bias

Related Stories

Recommended For You