<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: President Obama Signs Lilly Ledbetter Act (Video)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://currentemployment.net/2009/01/president-obama-signs-lilly-ledbetter-act-video/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://currentemployment.net/2009/01/president-obama-signs-lilly-ledbetter-act-video/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:45:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Schwartz</title>
		<link>http://currentemployment.net/2009/01/president-obama-signs-lilly-ledbetter-act-video/comment-page-1/#comment-168</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Schwartz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 03:57:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://currentemployment.net/?p=472#comment-168</guid>
		<description>Actually, as I blogged about today, the retroactive nature of the law will not affect cases that have already been dismissed because of the finality to them. Thus, Lilly Ledbetter will be &quot;victorious&quot; only in the sense that she had the last word. This does have the effect though of overturning Supreme Court precedent so it can&#039;t be used again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, as I blogged about today, the retroactive nature of the law will not affect cases that have already been dismissed because of the finality to them. Thus, Lilly Ledbetter will be &#8220;victorious&#8221; only in the sense that she had the last word. This does have the effect though of overturning Supreme Court precedent so it can&#8217;t be used again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
