McCain opposes equal pay bill in Senate

Parent Cafe
21

<p>

Assuming McCain appoints strict constructionists, it means it will be up to the legislature to write laws that govern the people instead of having Supreme Court justices bail out poorly written laws.</p>

<p>It would be nice is the Democrats would try to pass a statue of limitations that made sense instead of creating a never ending right to sue. </p>

<p>

The problem with your logic is that a new paycheck is not a new discriminatory act by the employer. The discriminatory act was when the employer sat down and took action with the intent to discriminate. Receiving additional lower checks merely describes the level of increasing damages that resulted from the original act of discrimination. Hitting someone on the head every week is a different action each week.</p>

22

<p>GWB plans to veto it if it reaches his desk anyway. </p>

<p>McCain is also opposing the new G.I. Bill because he seems to think if our gov’t are too nice to the soldiers leaving the service, they won’t want to stay in to fight. He’s flying under the radar now but when the Democrats turn their attention to him watch him tap-dance around these positions like a centipede with a hot-foot.</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>I disagree, in that a decision is made each week implicitly not to equalize the woman’s pay with her colleagues’. That is in itself a discriminatory choice. Furthermore, even if we go by your logic, are you suggesting that 180 days is a sufficient time for an employee to uncover what may be systemic and hidden discrimination of this kind? I don’t think so.</p>

24

<p>I am disgusted with McCain’s stand on this issue, and further disgusted with Congress’s failure to correct the gaping weakness in the Title VII law. I can’t even begin to talk about the SCOTUS, I’m so angry.:mad:</p>

<p>Point well noted, A.S.A.P. I may indeed have to amend my thinking on how I’ll vote. McCain has been pi**ing me off with some of his statements and stunts of late, and I might have to prepare myself to pinch my nose, swallow hard, and vote for Billary in November. Of course, I’d probably have to don a black arm band while doing so…God, I can’t even believe it may come to this!:(</p>

25

<p>Stirring the pot again, hey Razorsharp? Having fun yet?:rolleyes:</p>

26

<p>“Hitting someone on the head every week is a different action each week.”</p>

<p>This is a circular definition. It’s a different action each week because it’s a different action each week? How come I’m not just adding to the cumulative damage that resulted from my decision, ten years ago, that I’d start beating you up on a regular basis?</p>

<p>This week, my employer paid me $100 and my male colleague $200 for doing the exact same job. The employer sat down and wrote the two checks this week knowing full well that there was no justification for the difference except my gender (indeed, the employer in Ledbetter admits that freely). Please explain why I wasn’t injured to the tune of $100 this week.</p>

<p>I guess I could just use your rhetorical technique and say that writing the check is a different action each week because it’s a different action each week. That’ll change minds!</p>

27

<p>The idea of “same pay” for “same work” is just common sense. </p>

<p>The idea of “equal pay” for “equal work” shows a distinct lack of common sense and is always prompted by sinister intentions.</p>

28

<p>

Gender discrimination requires the intent to discriminate. If an executive hires a woman and says to another executive on March 1, 1990, “I am going to pay her half of what I pay men holding the same job because she is a woman”, then there is intent to discriminate. Giving the woman a lower paycheck for the next few years is the result of the executive’s intent displayed on march 1, 1990. It is not a separate intent to discriminate. For example, if the executive is fired in 1992 but the woman’s check remains lower, the lower pay check is the result of the intent to discrimiation in 1990. There is no separate decision to discrimiate in 1992 etc. Each lower paycheck represents the ongoing damages from the discrimatory act on March 1, 1990. </p>

<p>Battery requires the intent to hit. If John hit Bob on March 1, 1990, John displayed the intent to hit on that date. If John hits Bob once per week, John has the intent to hit every week. In this example, there many example of battery not just one.</p>

<p>Hanna, can you explain to me why Congress isn’t capable of writing the statute of limitations to say that discrimiation claims must be filed within 180 days of when the plaintiff discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury?" That would avoid all of these law suits and permit the courts to apply the law instead of re-writing it to include that exception.</p>

<p>poet, no stirring here. I am correct in my analysis on this issue. I save stirring for situations were everyone has the same emotional opinion (including me). If someone does not take a different view, no one has any fun discussing the issue. Stirring is often necessary when the original poster is all emotion and no punctuation. That isn’t the case for this thread. For example, Hanna’s comments are pretty intelligent and not merely emotional.</p>

29

<p>Hanna’s comments are correct and logical. The act of stroking a check every week in the knowledge that you are paying someone less than they deserve, is as purposeful as each weekly act of hitting someone on the head.</p>

30

<p>The concern over the open ended statute of limitations in the current bill is a false one designed to provide an excuse to vote against this bill:

  1. If the bill were drafted to say you have 180 days from the time you know the lower paycheck was the result if discrimination, it would be no different from the current bill, as a practical matter. When you get a lower paycheck, no one ever states: This is because you are a woman. If that ever happened, you can be sure the person would sue right away. Rather, what happens is that, over time, you begin to see that you check is consistently lower than what the men are receiving, and you begin to suspect it’s sex. You then file suit. Indeed, there is really no way to pinpoint when people “know” the lower paycheck is the result of discrimination; it’s just something that develops over time. The only practicaly way to have a statute that works is as the current bill is drafted.<br>
  2. Also, the notion that a long statute hurts employers is wrong. The plaintiff has the burden of proof, and the plaintiff typically has no direct evidence of discrimination. The more time that has passed since the initial decision to discriminate was made, the harder the plaintiff’s case.</p>
31

<p>“Hanna, can you explain to me why Congress isn’t capable of writing the statute of limitations to say that discrimiation claims must be filed within 180 days of when the plaintiff discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury?” That would avoid all of these law suits and permit the courts to apply the law instead of re-writing it to include that exception."</p>

<p>The GAO has already determined that the bill McCain voted against would not result in more lawsuits. </p>

<p>But in any case, now that he has voted against the bill, what does McCain plan to do about it? I suspect nothing, because he is just fine with gender discrimination in pay. But it would be nice to learn otherwise.</p>

32

<p>Well said, Mythreesons. Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated clearly.</p>

33

<p>“Gender discrimination requires the intent to discriminate.”</p>

<p>OK, you really don’t know this area of the law. First of all, illegal gender (or race) discrimination can include “disparate impact” actions. Plaintiffs alleging disparate impact discrimination do not have to show intent. </p>

<p>Also, legally, “intent” to discriminate does not have to mean, “I hate women, ha ha!” If an employer fails to take action when it is aware that discrimination is occurring, that’s intentional discrimination under the law. In other words, suppose a sexist manager is harrassing female employees. They report the harrassment to the CEO, and the CEO is not a sexist, but he decides not to fire the manager because the manager produces tons of widgets. The CEO, and by extension the company, is liable for intentional discrimination at that point. That’s true even though he’s got nothing against women and isn’t trying to hurt them.</p>

<p>This is what I do all day. These cases – even before Ledbetter – are incredibly difficult to prove. The overwhelming majority of incidents don’t result in suits, and the overwhelming majority of suits filed are dismissed or otherwise fail. By “overwhelming majority” I’m talking about 95% or more. You also have to go through the EEOC before you can sue. There are many, many layers of protection for defendant employers, and many safeguards to prevent meritless cases from reaching trial. This decision is nothing but a naked attempt to close the door to these suits a little more tightly because the court doesn’t like the law Congress passed.</p>

<p>“why Congress isn’t capable of writing the statute of limitations to say that discrimiation claims must be filed within 180 days of when the plaintiff discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury?”</p>

<p>That’s the law under discussion in this thread, the one that McCain opposes. Congress shouldn’t have to rewrite it, because to courts and lawyers, it’s already perfectly clear – note that it’s been read consistently to allow Ledbetter-type suits by thousands of courts for over forty years. But since the Supreme Court is being willfully ignorant about this, Congress is re-writing it. We’ll see what happens with W. </p>

<p>Seriously, this is one of the most naked cases of activism I’ve ever seen. I’m not necessarily opposed to activism – Brown v. Board was totally activist – but if you are, then you should disagree with the court here.</p>

34

<p>mini- he actually hasn’t voted against it, just said he was against it. He wasn’t in Congress for the vote. </p>

<p>His answer at this time is to give women more education to compete. Talk about out of touch. The bill speaks to situations where the women are doing the SAME work for lower pay. Education isn’t relevant to this bill.</p>

35

<p>“mini- he actually hasn’t voted against it, just said he was against it. He wasn’t in Congress for the vote.”</p>

<p>Is that like voting “Present”? ;)</p>

36

<p>

Actually I am an expert in this area of the law.</p>

<p>I did not discuss disparate impact because I saw nothing in Ledbetter’s claim about disparate impact. Ledbetter was not challenging tests, education requirements, etc. and offering statistical analysis of groups. Also, few on this board would understand it. If you wish to write about it, that’s up to you. Although there are execptions, disparate impact cases are practically impossible to prove and win. </p>

<p>

I never said it did. But anyway, it is necessary to show intent to discriminate and Ledbetter was alleging this.</p>

<p>

That’s not what the bill says. It’s intro says:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Saying “each time compensation is paid” creates an unlimited liablity and it not the same as saying 180 days from the time the plaintiff knew or should have known of the discrimination. Litigating cases 30 years after a discriminatory act, would undermine the ability of businesses to conduct business.</p>

37

<p>“His answer at this time is to give women more education to compete.”</p>

<p>When he says something like this, it gives one pause as to whether he is having a senior moment, is imitating his mentor GWB, just doesn’t understand the issues involved, or really believes that women just don’t deserve equal pay. Since I like to give him credit for intelligence and for understanding, I have to assume the last until proven otherwise.</p>

38

<p>Razorsharp, you’re a lawyer? I thought you were a student.</p>

39

<p>I am a student at the University of Opine. I am involved in heavy litigation against the University regarding my in-state status. (yes my lawyer if fat, so what? Who would trust a skinny lawyer?) It seems the university discovered that I live in more than one state. I have residences in the State of Denial, State of Confusion, and State of Reason. I tried to explain to the University that because I have more than one personality and those personalities should not live together that having more than one residence should not disquality me from in-state tuition. I will keep you posted on how the lawsuit is going; but in the meantime if you want to send money to help me pay for my lawyer …? :)</p>

40

<p>Oh…Cute…:rolleyes:
So explain it to us again—What “makes you an expert in this area of the law”?-----As opposed to Hanna who is a lawyer, and works in this area of the law “all day”?</p>