Republicans ostensibly oppose the Fair Pay Restoration Act because they fear it will throw open the gates to a glut of lawsuits that will cripple businesses and slow the economy. Well, if it’s lawsuits they fear, the Court didn’t help them.

Consider this line, which Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote for the majority in Ledbetter v. Goodyear: “Ledbetter should have filed an EEOC charge within 180 days after each allegedly discriminatory pay decision was made and communicated to her” (p. 2).

What’s that, you say, Sam?

An EEOC charge within 180 days after each pay decision?

As in, every two weeks?

That’s 26 charges a year.

I’m not an attorney; maybe Alito is saying that each charge can be folded in to a complainant’s initial action. But couldn’t it also be construed to mean that each charge should constitute a separate action?

So, under Alito’s complaint structure, over the course of her career at Goodyear, Lilly Ledbetter might have had …

… Nearly 500 actions on her own!

Hey, way to keep those court dockets light, Republicans!

And as long as we’re talking about the decision, let’s examine the fulcrum on which Ledbetter turned: The statute of limitations.

Set aside for the moment that under Ledbetter, the Court requires plaintiffs to file complaints of discrimination within a certain time frame irrespective of those plaintiffs’ access to information that would demonstrate their claims.

I want to know why any elected official would excuse discrimination within any time frame.

For example, according to his statement, U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby apparently believes that discrimination can only be challenged a) during a certain period of time, and b) if the employee is still employed at the company in question.

Why should it matter when the discrimination occurred? If it occurred, isn’t rectifying it more important than protecting the offending party?

And back to the column and what U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers said about balance, I didn’t get that at all.

(In case you missed it, Rogers said he opposed the Ledbetter Act because he “remained concerned it simply doesn’t strike the right balance.“)

I’m still wondering: What constitutes “the right balance?“

I asked, but Rogers didn’t elaborate.

The irony of Rogers’ objection is that it’s balance the bill is trying to provide. Call me crazy, but I always thought that something was either balanced, or it wasn’t. Something can’t be a little out of balance and still be in balance. So how can there be a “right balance” and a wrong balance?

Maybe Rogers is some sort of physics genius who understands the concept of balance on a higher plane than the rest of us. Maybe my inability to understand that “higher concept” is proof that I should make less for the same work than a man.

But I don’t think so.

Maybe the answer is that Republicans aren’t trying to acieve “balance” as we traditionally understand it. Maybe they have come to the conclusion that a little bit of inequality, injustice and discrimination is OK, as long as it keeps the big boys out of the courts.

Maybe the reality is that imbalance is the new balance.

Finally, I’m not saying that Republicans don’t support equal pay for women. They all say they do – at least, I haven’t seen any statement from any Republican who says he believes that women should make less than men. I don’t want to call anyone a liar, so I guess we have to take them at their word.

But I am saying this: Republicans might believe in equal pay for equal work. But if they do, by opposing the Ledbetter fix, they believe in protecting businesses that discriminate against women more.

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.

“One person in the room;“

“A participant and others who were briefed on the session;“

“Someone who observed the exchange;“

“A senior House Republican lawmaker ... at a luncheon with reporters;“ and

“Participants.“

Again, this is yet another example of what we were talking about yesterday: The Times’ wanton, reckless use of anonymous sources. Note that the Times didn’t even use the oft-repeated qualifier, “... who spoke only on condition of anonymity.“ You see, the use of anonymous sources has become so institutional, they don’t even feel that they owe you an explanation anymore when they don’t tell you where they’re getting their information! There is no need to hide the names of sources in this story. By just about every account, the information provided by the sources is true. It’s a shame that the Times undermines it by unnecessarily obfuscating them.