Posted on April 1st, 2009 by Charity Clemons | No Comments »
Filed under: ., Discrimination, HR Issues, The Financial Crisis | 
On the contrary.
Amidst the gradual demise of this country’s economic infrastructure, legal and financial institutions have been faced with historic downsizing efforts. The public has been inundated with headlines foretelling salary cuts, layoffs, and disappearing pensions. As the dust begins to settle, it appears that these mass reductions are widening a gender gap that, up to now, had been slowly closing.
On March 16, Forbes magazine ran a cover article exposing claims made by Wall Street women that female employees have endured the brunt of downsizing efforts. According to the article, the financial services and insurance firms have cut approximately 260,000 jobs. An astounding 72% of these jobs belonged to women, even though women only constituted 64% of the workforce before the economic downturn.
Many of the ousted female professionals are seeking legal recourse and have recently filed charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney Douglas Wigdor, who is featured in the Forbes article, currently represents a group of five former managers and rising young stars who claim they were victimized by the cuts. In the article, Mr. Wigdor describes the cuts as a case of “recessionary discrimination.”
Still, other women with cognizable claims against various financial institutions will not come forward. There is a concern that in doing so, they will be professionally exiled from the industry once the economy regains its footing. The Forbes article recounts a 2007 class action settlement, where female employees at Morgan Stanley were given the opportunity to opt-in:
Alice Hughes, a Morgan Stanley financial adviser in Dallas, talked with several women who declined to participate–and not because they planned to pursue separate claims. “It was just sheer fear,” she says, that even if they kept their jobs they might be excluded from benefits like getting a chunk of business when another broker left the firm. “They’re right,” says Hughes. Moreover, she claims, if they make trouble, “they will be blacklisted from working at any major firm.”
Posted on January 29th, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | 1 Comment »
Filed under: ., Discrimination, HR Issues, Politics |
This morning, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law. It was the first bill Obama has signed since taking office.
Joining him at the signing ceremony were, among others, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, First Lady Michelle Obama, and Lilly Ledbetter herself, who is seen on the video receiving the signatory pen.
The law is intended to reverse the Supreme Court decision, also bearing Ledbetter’s name, that plaintiffs in discrimination cases must bring their claims within 180 days from the initial discriminatory act. Under the newly-signed revision, claimants have 180 days since the most recent discriminatory act. This difference means that employees like Ledbetter, who worked for years without knowing she was being paid unequally, have 180 days from their last paycheck to file suit.
A couple of important notes about the Ledbetter Act:
- It is not limited to gender discrimination. The law changes the filing limitations in all major antidiscrimination statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities and Age Discrimination in Employment Acts.
- It doesn’t change the amount a plaintiff can recover. That is still limited under most statutes to damages dating 2-years back from the date the claimant files a charge.
- The law is designed to be retroactive, applying to cases initiated anytime on or after May 28, 2007 (the day before the Supreme Court’s decision). What this means for the cases that have been dismissed in the interim, or for Ledbetter herself, in unclear. (Some have suggested that she wins nunc pro tunc. I’m not so sure.) Expect this point to be litigated agressively and soon.
Posted on January 28th, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | No Comments »
Filed under: ., Discrimination, HR Issues, Politics |
[More coverage: President Obama Signs Ledbetter Fair Pay Act]
Yesterday, the House voted 250-177 to send the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to the President’s desk. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, President Obama has indicated he will sign the bill tomorrow, making it the first major legislation approved under his tenure.
Named for the Plaintiff in a Supreme Court case the law effectively overturns, The Ledbetter Act alters the major discrimination laws – Title VII, the ADA, ADEA and the Rehabilitation Act – to make clear that each unequal paycheck an employee receives is a new discriminatory act, effectively continuing the statute of limitations for as long as the person is employed or receiving benefits from the company.
The Court had interpreted the original Act’s language, that the statute of limitations started at the time of “the alleged unlawful employment practice,” to mean that an employee had to bring a claim within 180 days of the initial decision to provide them unequal pay. Which meant Ledbetter, who was tipped off to her unequal pay at 70, months before retirement, was years too late to bring a valid claim.
Congress’s vote fell mainly along party lines; this was a statute that President Bush had vowed to veto had he seen it last year.
Republicans are concerned that the change will lead to stale lawsuits that are hard, if not impossible, to defend. Management-side attorneys are warning their clients that employee records that used to be cleared for shredding will now have to be stored indefinitely.
Proponents of the bill, including most Democrats, women’s-rights groups and organized labor, say the Ledbetter Act will finally provide the right statutory protection to level the playing field with regard to pay. The view was succinctly summed up by Senator Barabara McKulski of Maryland (the bill’s chief sponsor in the Senate) in the N.Y. Times:
“If you don’t want to be sued, don’t discriminate.”
This early passage of such a controversial bill is heralding a wave of legislation that’s likely to come throughout the year. Democrats have been holding onto similar bills until a more favorable climate arose for their passage, and have clearly found it in the new President and their increased power in both Houses of Congress.
The bulk effect of these changes may be a shift of power under U.S. labor and employment law away from business and into the hands of employees and their labor representatives.
