Bill On Wage Discrimination Sent To Obama

WASHINGTON–Legislation reversing a Supreme Court decision that severely limited workers' ability to sue their employers on the basis of wage discrimination was passed by the House yesterday and sent to President Obama.

The measure is entitled the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act after the factory worker who brought the case that led to the high court's 2007 decision, which held that she was time-barred from being able to sue for wage discrimination.

Ms. Letter was ruled ineligible to sue because she had not filed her claim within 180 days of “the alleged unlawful employment practice.” She claimed that male coworkers had been paid more for doing the same job that she had performed for years.

President Obama had made his opposition to the Supreme Court decision a centerpiece to his presidential election campaign.

The 250-177 vote in the House came five days after the Senate passed the bill, 61-36. The bill is S. 181.

The legislation is the same one passed by the House Jan. 9, but because the House coupled the bill with another labor measure, the Senate decided to deal with the two issues separately and the House was required to vote again on the bill for it to become law.

The measure 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 this new Act, employers can 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.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the bill's chief sponsor and chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said after the vote, “The Supreme Court simply told bad employers that to escape responsibility for pay discrimination, all they need to do is keep it hidden for the first 180 days.

“But today, thanks to Lilly's incredible courage and perseverance, Congress rejected this ruling for the millions of Americans suddenly now subject to legal discrimination,” he added.

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.

Under existing law, a victim of discrimination can recover up to two years of back pay.

“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.

The American Benefits Council, which lobbies for employers on benefits issues, won a provision in the bill designed to ensure that it 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 that the trade group remains concerned that 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 ABC was apparently unable to win a provision in the bill clarifying that.