Alabama’s lawmakers on the Fair Pay Restoration Act

First of all, the court case that is at the heart of this issue: You can read the U.S. Supreme Court’s file on Ledbetter v. Goodyear, including majority and dissenting opinions, here.

The legislation seeking to clarify the confusion that apparently consumed the Court on this issue: The Senate bill is S. 1843, while the House measure is H.R. 2831.

A nice article on Lilly Ledbetter herself can be found here (click “Cancel” when you’re ask for registration information).

Also, I told you that Alabama’s two senators both oppose the bill. I didn’t have room to include this information in the column, but I think it’s important, so I’m posting it here.

U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby provided this statement through his press staff:

I do not support the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act because the bill essentially ends the statute of limitations contained in Title VII existing employment law.  Under current law, employees must file employment discrimination claims within either 180 days or 300 days, depending on the state in which the case is filed.  However, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would eliminate the statute and allow individuals to bring claims years or even decades after the alleged discrimination occurred – even after the employee has left the workplace.  While I believe that workplace discrimination is simply unacceptable, the complete elimination of the statute of limitations creates an unreasonable burden for both employees and employers.  Moreover, such claims may also be made under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which has a longer statute of limitations and prohibits the payment of unequal wages to employees of different genders who perform equal work.

I contacted U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions’ staff by telephone and e-mail; deputy press secretary Sarah Haley responded thusly at 7:46 a.m. Friday:

I am so sorry it has taken so long to get back with you. As you can imagine, things up here have been quite busy.  We will not be able to meet your 9a.m. deadline.  But please contact us again.

Keep in mind that Sessions sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Lilly Ledbetter testified on Tuesday. Think about that: That is an Alabama resident testifying on a bill that had its genesis in Alabama before a committee that includes a member from Alabama. You would think that Alabama’s senator who was, presumably, there would have something to say about it.

Nope.

I encouraged them to submit the information anyway, so I could post it here for you to see.

Nothing so far.

Finally, I noted in my print column that U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers did not respond to my follow-up questions.

Just to review, here were my follow-up questions:

Does Rep. Rogers support the principle of equal pay for women?

Has he ever voted in favor of an equal pay bill in Congress?

Did Rep. Rogers’ mother make the same in the textile mill as men who performed the same type of work she did?

What changes are necessary to the Ledbetter Act for it to strike the right balance? Or, generally speaking, what does Rep. Rogers consider to be the right balance?

Did Rep. Rogers attempt to amend the Ledbetter Act in any way while it was under consideration in the House, either in the committee process or on the floor, to help bring it closer to the balance he seeks?

I made it clear to Rogers’ staff that I would need their feedback before 9 a.m. Friday (I have to meet my deadline for the weekend paper). I received their response at 4:14 p.m. Central time on Friday, several hours after I had filed my print column with editorial page editor Joe McAdory.

When I wrote that they didn’t respond, they hadn’t responded yet.

Anyway, here is the second statement—also in its entirety—sent to me by Rogers’ spokesperson, Shea Snider:

“It goes without saying that Congressman Rogers supports equal pay for equal work. While he would like to have seen some changes in the legislation, Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not allow amendments to the bill in the House.”

Still no word on his mother’s pay rate.

More on this issue later this weekend.