House Dems Target Court's Pay Ruling
Legal News Center
[##_1L|1345683955.jpg|width="130" height="93" alt=""|_##]The time limit for suing a company for pay discrimination should restart each time an employee gets a reduced paycheck, House Democrats said Tuesday, taking issue with a recent Supreme Court decision. The court's May 29 decision limited the time workers have to sue their employers to six months after the allegedly illegal action began.
The time limit should run "from the date a discriminatory wage is actually paid, not simply some earliest possible date which has come and gone long ago," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.
Republicans and business advocates warned that making that change could make business executives liable for actions taken by managers who had left a company long ago.
"At the end of the day, such a loophole conceivably could allow a retiring employee to seek damages against a company now led by executives who had nothing to do with the initial act of discrimination," said Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon of California, top Republican on the Education and Labor Committee.
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to throw out a Goodyear employee's complaint that she earned thousands of dollars less than her male counterparts.
Under the court's decision, an employee must sue within a 180-day deadline of a decision involving pay if the employee think it involves race, sex, religion or national origin.
Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala., sued right before she retired. She ended a 19-year career making $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor, and she claimed earlier decisions by her supervisors kept her from making more.
The court's five most conservative members said the woman waited too long to complain. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in dissent for the court's four liberal members, urged Congress to amend the law.
Advocates said six months is not enough time to build a case and decide whether a lawsuit is warranted, given how secretive people are about their salaries and companies are about their decisions on raises.
Related listings
-
Top court rules against Philip Morris
Legal News Center 06/11/2007[##_1L|1054958485.jpg|width="131" height="91" alt=""|_##]The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a class-action lawsuit against Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc. (MO.N: Quote, Profile , Research), should not be decided in federal cou...
-
US quarantine laws need updating: CDC director
Legal News Center 06/08/2007[##_1L|1038012628.jpg|width="130" height="93" alt=""|_##]Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), testified before ...
-
Atlantic Yards suit dismissed by federal judge
Legal News Center 06/07/2007[##_1L|1183512468.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit against the $4 billion Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn. The ruling, eagerly awaited for two months, is a major blow to opponents of the project,...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.