Posted by Orin Kerr:
Ledbetter v .Goodyear Tire & Rubber:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_05_27-2007_06_02.shtml#1180548166
Although I have no background at all in employment law, I was very
interested in yesterday's 5-4 decision in [1]Ledbetter v. Gooyear Tire
and Rubber.
The issue in the case was whether Ledbetter had filed her employment
discrimination case before the EEOC in time: Federal law requires that
a case must be filed within 180 days "after the alleged unlawful
employment practice occurred." 42 U. S. C. §2000e�2(a)(1). Ledbetter
worked for Goodyear for about ten years, and after she retired in 1998
she sued Goodyear for giving her low raises on account of her gender
throughout the term of her employment. Goodyear responded that under
federal law she could only sue for any discrimination within the last
180 days, and that no discrimination occurred within the 180-day
window.
Five Justices agreed with Goodyear: Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy,
and Thomas. According to the majority, the case was simple and the
result was clear based on text and a string of precedents. To figure
out how the 180 day clock runs, you just identify the alleged
discriminatory act and then count the 180 days. The discriminatory act
was the discriminatory raise, so Ledbetter couldn't sue over
discriminatory raises from years earlier. The majority seems sort of
perplexed that you could look at the case differently; after
summarizing an earlier precedent that pointed to the same result,
Justice Alito wrote, "It would be difficult to speak to the point more
directly."
Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Breyer.
Although Ginsburg did rely on one prior precedent, much of her opinion
was based on policy concerns. According to Ginsburg, differences in
pay increases may be hard to identify at first, and employees may not
want to sue over them when they're unclear. Requiring employees to sue
within 180 days of the discriminatory raise would gut the statute,
because few cases would be brought. As a result, "the unlawful
employment practice" should be read as the payment of the salary,
rather than the pay raise itself; because pay raises are usually
cumulative, that would let an employee sue for a discriminatory pay
raise long outside the 180 day window.
It's a very interesting case, I think. I don't know enough to know
which side is right, as I haven't read the prior precedents or studied
the statute. I do find myself inclined towards Alito's approach
because of its traditional focus on text and precedent, but without
delving into the cases I can't be certain.
References
1. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1074.pdf
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
