Another View of Fair Pay Act

When President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, I did a post concerning the new law. This post included links to previous posts I had done. The Fair Pay Act had been floating around for some time, so much had been written about it before it became law, and much has certainly been written since President Obama signed the Act.

Anytime a new law or new case seems significant to a particular area of the law (like labor and employment), lawyers who practice in that area give it plenty of attention — even some hype. Labor and employment lawyers aren’t above doing that, and Dan Schwartz has recently noted that the Fair Pay Act has been over-hyped.

Though I may not agree with each point Dan makes, he makes a lot of good points in his thought-provoking post. It’ll be a while before we know what the new Act does. Until lawsuits are filed under the Act and courts begin issuing decisions, we can only make educated guesses. It wouldn’t surprise me if the U.S. Supreme Court  weighs in again one of these days, and that could cause Congress to start all over.

1. 

   Dan Schwartz says:

   February 3, 2009 at 2:07 pm

   Thanks for the citation. While I try to be right about everything, I have been known to be wrong on occasion. So, as with all opinion pieces, you can take mine with a grain of salt too.
2. 

   ACU Frank says:

   February 3, 2009 at 2:44 pm

   Interviewed on the Rachel Maddow show (which I generally love), Senator Barbara Mikulski stopped just short of claiming her bill freed women from slavery, gave them the right to vote, and cured feminine itch. Her grandstanding was exceeded only by Maddow’s pandering. As you can imagine, I enjoyed Dan Schwartz’s take. A telling point in Maddow’s interview came when she asked Sen. Mikulski about the potential impact from suits seeking to remedy pension disparities that would be rooted in the unequal pay.

   The good Senator hadn’t really thought much about that. Why was I not surprised?
3. 

   John Phillips says:

   February 3, 2009 at 3:03 pm

   Dan,

   Your opinion deserves more than a grain of salt, as evidenced by ACU Frank’s comment.

   Frank,

   Your humor actually works at times. I’m glad I missed the Mikulski interview, but I appreciate your summary. As I tried to say in my post on the Act, it does have impact on sex claims that women can file, but it also applies to race, color, national origin, religion, age and disability. The face of Ms. Ledbetter turned it into a rallying cry for women’s rights.

   Time and some court decisions will let us know whether Dan or Senator Mikulski or someone else is right.

   John
4. 

   Jack Burgin says:

   February 5, 2009 at 6:28 pm

   As to “the potential impact from suits seeking to remedy pension disparities that would be rooted in the unequal pay” I am going to take the legislation at its word (section 2(4)) and argue the time for suing must start no later than when the employee is provided the final pension payment calculation. It would be enough of a nightmare to litigate those stale claims – imagine litigating claims of retirees or their executors.

   As to what Ledbetter will bring, we have had an ostensibly open-ended limitations period in Tennesee on pay discrimination claims for over two years now and, I don’t know what John has seen, but I haven’t noticed a sharp increase in pay discrimination lawsuits.
5. 

   John Phillips says:

   February 5, 2009 at 6:46 pm

   Jack,

   Thanks for weighing in.

   I hope you’re right on your first point.

   As to your second point, I too haven’t noticed much of an increase in pay discrimination lawsuits in Tennessee. However, given the current economic situation we’re in, there could be an uptick in lawsuits for all kinds of reasons.

   John