Opinion
Change — a broad, yet hopeful notion that President Barack Obama promised Americans on the presidential campaign trail, and even more avidly after he won the election.
It was a truly historic moment when he was signed in as the first black president. It’s even more significant that he is confident, well-educated, a calm and respectful public speaker, and not afraid to tackle the innumerable intricate issues that are plaguing America due to the many infected wounds left untreated by George W. Bush.
For all these reasons, it was difficult not to get swept up in the media-induced hype on Jan. 20 during Obama’s Inaugural Address. Even during my excitement that Monday, however, I couldn’t help consider what “change” really means to Obama or to any of his glossy-eyed supporters.
Nine days later, Americans got their first taste of his definition.
On Jan. 29, with the new law’s namesake Lilly Ledbetter there to witness, Obama signed his first bill: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — a legislation to fight pay discrimination and ensure “fundamental fairness” to all American workers.
The Act is Congress’ response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2007 case Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. In this case, the court held that Lilly Ledbetter — who worked for 20 years at a Goodyear plant before discovering that she was getting unfairly paid less than her male counterparts — could not maintain a claim for wage discrimination against Goodyear because she did not file her claim within the applicable 180-day statute of limitation.
Congress recently found that the Ledbetter decision (1) undermined statutory protections against wage discrimination by unduly restricting the time period in which victims of discrimination could challenge discriminatory compensation decisions or other practices and (2) ignored the reality of wage discrimination and was at odds with the robust application of the civil rights laws.
One of the Act’s most popular characteristics is that it allows employees to file claims for wage discrimination based on age, race, religion, gender and sexuality within 180 days from “each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid” pursuant to a discriminatory pay-setting decision or practice. Basically, each paycheck renews the 180-day statute of limitation (or treats it as a new “act” of discrimination) regardless of when the initial pay-setting decision occurred.
Some in Congress opposed the law, claiming that it would have negative affects on small companies since they, many times, have little access to the attorneys and human-resources professionals that will help larger businesses comply with the newly expanded (2007 Lilly Ledbetter) law.
For example, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, was one of 36 senators who voted against the act. He argued that it would facilitate more discrimination suits — a “costly distraction” at a time when, he argues, small businesses are critical to a U.S. economic recovery.
He has been quoted by several publications that small businesses cannot afford to ‘lawyer up’ and fight potential suits. “Our country needs more jobs,” Ensign explained, “not more lawsuits.”
It appeared that Ensign (and others who agree with his stance) is essentially arguing that people shouldn’t be concerned with workplace discrimination; that discriminated-against employees should be content with having a job that pays them any source of income, especially during a recession.
Those, whom I’ve spoken to, with such perspectives site recent statistics that state 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, even though the proportion of women who are working has hardly changed since the recession started.
This is equated to women being more likely to be in part-time jobs without health insurance or unemployment insurance, and earning roughly 78 cents for each dollar of their male counterparts’ income, which equals roughly to $434,000 over a 40-year career (according to the Center for American Progress study “Lifetime Losses: The Career Wage Gap”).
When considering these facts, views that align with Ensign’s imply that being discriminated against is actually paying off; that now is certainly not the time to “make waves.”
I couldn’t help but wonder if people with such views would ever believe in a “good time” for such a change.
From a woman’s standpoint, this act is just the kind of drastic change — a total leveling of ingrained discriminatory practices against those of a minority gender, age, race, religion and/or disability — that America needs, especially at a time of economic distress.
Since a strong threat of being sued looms over businesses, it will not allow employers the financial ability (the economic “wiggle room”) to manipulate the system, which has been done so often in the past.
The Lilly Ledbetter Act is a step in the right direction now that companies — large and small — need to meticulously document pay decisions and retain detailed employment records in order to ward off discrimination suits. Only now can we begin to rebuild our economy based on fair practices.
