A few more thoughts on equal pay

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.