Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | Y | Yale Law Journal

Ledbetter in Congress: the limits of a narrow legislative override.

Publication: Yale Law Journal
Publication Date: 01-MAR-08
Format: Online
Delivery: Immediate Online Access

Article Excerpt
INTRODUCTION

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the Supreme Court held that an employee was barred from suing her employer for pay discrimination under Title VII. (1) The plaintiff, Lilly Ledbetter, was a twenty-year employee of Goodyear who, over the course of her employment, repeatedly received lower raises than her male counterparts because supervisors had given her negative evaluations due to her sex. (2) By the end of her employment at Goodyear, Ledbetter's salary was significantly lower than those of any of her male peers. (3) The Supreme Court, however, held that Ledbetter could not recover because she failed to comply with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge provision, which requires that plaintiffs file claims of employment discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of the discriminatory act before they may sue under Title VII. (4) The Court held that only the initial pay-setting decisions themselves constituted discrete acts of discrimination; subsequent paychecks were merely "adverse effects" lacking the intent required to establish disparate treatment. (5)

In response, Congress is considering legislation to override the Ledbetter decision by clarifying that under Title VII, a discrete discriminatory act occurs each time an employee is affected by a discriminatory compensation decision. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 ("Fair Pay Act") passed the House on July 31, 2007, and provides in part that "an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation ... when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice...." (6) A substantively similar bill, the Fair Pay Act of 2007, has been introduced in the Senate and is currently being considered by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (7) While this Comment discusses the Fair Pay Act as passed by the House, its analysis applies to both versions of the bill, which would have similar effect.

This Comment argues that amending Title VII only with respect to pay discrimination will hinder future plaintiffs in bringing nonwage discrimination claims and will promote future narrowing of the doctrine interpreting Title VII's EEOC charge provision. These consequences contravene both Congress's purpose in enacting the override legislation and past congressional understandings of Title VII. (8) Congress should therefore expand the scope of its legislative override to make clear that each application of a discriminatory policy, whether or not related to compensation, constitutes an unlawful employment practice.

The Fair Pay Act's limitations are symptomatic of a broader flaw in congressional overrides of judicial decisions: when Congress passes legislation focused too narrowly on the factual context of the judicial decision it is designed to override, it may have adverse consequences. For example, future courts may interpret a partial override to signal that Congress endorses the holding except with regard to one specific factual context. Courts may consequently continue to apply the holding in other factual contexts and as a precedent for future development of the doctrine. To avoid these consequences, Congress should better anticipate the way in which future courts will apply a proposed legislative override to other factual contexts and future doctrinal development.

I. THE FAIR PAY ACT'S EFFECT ON FUTURE TITLE VII PLAINTIFFS

The text of the Fair Pay Act leaves intact Ledbetter's essential holding that "[a] new violation does not occur, and a new charging period does not commence, upon the occurrence of subsequent nondiscriminatory acts that entail adverse effects resulting from the past discrimination." (9) Future courts, reading the Fair Pay Act to repudiate the principles of Ledbetter only with...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!



More articles from Yale Law Journal
Seeking more scienter: the effect of False Claims Act interpretations., March 01, 2008

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.