<p>But let’s assume he’s right. Doesn’t it make McCain look even worse?</p>
<p>Besides this legislation addressed by the OP, McCAin also opposes the new GI Bill, relief for New Orleans and most any legislation that helps anyone in need.</p>
<p>“I did not discuss disparate impact because I saw nothing in Ledbetter’s claim about disparate impact.”</p>
<p>OK, so I guess you meant to qualify your earlier statement that “Gender discrimination requires the intent to discriminate.” You’re talking just about what was pled in this case, and not the law in general. The upshot of the proposed change is to keep suits like Ledbetter’s from being time-barred. What in the world do you mean by “unlimited liability”? Plaintiffs will still have 180 days from each check to file with the EEOC.</p>
<p>If you really are an “expert in this area of the law,” you know that disparate treatment cases, like disparate impact cases, are devilishly hard to prove irrespective of statute-of-limitations problems. No one is going to be collecting damages under the revised law unless they were discriminated against. So why oppose it, unless you oppose civil rights laws in general? Apparently McCain does oppose them.</p>