Comments on: Paycheck Fairness Act Takes Center Stage

By: Shopfloor » Blog Archive » Lilly Ledbetter at the Democratic convention

Shopfloor » Blog Archive » Lilly Ledbetter at the Democratic convention — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:28:28 +0000

[…] Daniel Schwartz at Overlawyered examines Ledbetter and the also misnamed Paycheck Fairness Act, encouraging more discrimination lawsuits. […]

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:06:04 +0000

I absolutely agree with you. But conservatives do a better job at this than liberals do. No Child Left Behind? Who would vote to leave a child behind? Look at the debate over tort reform, language created by the right and then adopted by all. Reform? Reform is always a pretty good idea, right? Tax relief. Is that a fair way to frame the issue? You are either for relief or you are against? The list goes on and on.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:08:45 +0000

I see. Then it is really deceptive. The parts that one can make out in the changes in context version seem quite reasonable, in some cases just clarifications, and in one case even a limitation on the previous version.

By: Daniel Schwartz

Daniel Schwartz — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:40:36 +0000

Gender discrimination cases are normally subject to Title VII which has a cap on punitives. Here, the PFA would expand 206(d)(1) without any cap on punitive damages. You have to look back at 29 u.s.c. 206 (d) to see it and its not even in the changes in context version. It would also allow punitives in cases of disparate impact, in which a policy or practice may have an impact on a protected group, but was not intended to be discriminatory.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:04:56 +0000

From reading the changes in context I don’t see where: (a) the cap on punitive damages is removed; (b) where it allows punitive damages without proof of intent.

By: Bumper

Bumper — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:43:50 +0000

from http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/2008/08/articles/legislative-issues/paycheck-fairness-act-rep-rosa-delauro-provides-some-context/

Indeed, the irony of the Ledbetter case is that there already exists a law that would have permitted Ledbetter to sue. The Equal Pay Act specifically addresses pay disparity and has a longer statute of limitations. But for some reason, Ledbetter’s attorney chose to sue under the all-purpose anti-discrimination law, Title VII, thus dooming her claims.

So lost in all the demagoguery is that fact that Ledbetter should have just sued her lawyer for malpractice. After all that’s probably what she would have done to a doctor who prescribed the wrong antibiotic for an infection.

By: jbd

jbd — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:02:40 +0000

This is the kind of thoughtful analysis that keeps me coming back to this site (along with the lurid tales of Scruggs and Lerach, of course).

By: Shopfloor » Blog Archive » A Night of Workplace Grievances at the Democratic Convention

Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:34:59 +0000

[…] post on the topic at Point of Law.com, and employment lawyer Daniel Schwartz examines the related Fair Pay Act at Overlawyered.com. We imagine the claims, complaints and supposed solutions will flow freely tonight, so at least […]

By: JP

JP — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:05:01 +0000

Thanks for the post. I feel like banging my head against the wall every time I read a news or blog story about the Ledbetter case or any of the proposed legislation it has spawned that fails to mention the Equal Pay Act. And that’s pretty much every story (other than at Overlawyered and a few management-side employment law blogs).

As far as I can tell from the Court’s opinions, when Ms. Ledbetter’s trial attorneys dropped or waived her EPA claims, they shafted her far worse than anything she claims her employer ever did.

By: Daniel Schwartz

Daniel Schwartz — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:53:30 +0000

I knew someone would find the humor in that. Too bad hope and optimism are in short supply nowadays….