OK, I see you are much more willing to allow extenuating circumstances in the case of majority group members claiming discrimination by or in favor of historically disadvantaged people.
In Lily Ledbetter's case, she knew nothing of the discriminatorily unequal pay for most of her time on that job. Someone in payroll eventually blew the whistle to her, and she sued. She had plenty of evidence in her favor, and all the courts below agreed with her. In Ledbetter's case, her performance over time was strictly reviewed and compared to her more highly paid colleagues, and she came out equal or better.
The Supreme Court, in its inexplicable ruling, relied not on the evidence showing discrimination, but on the timeliness of her complaint. For some reason, they held her accountable for not finding out about the discrimination with 90 days of her first unequal paycheck.
Now, I have been working on investigating employment complaints for many years. For decades, the longstanding, court sanctioned policy for timeliness of unequal pay claims extended the timely period to within 90 days of the LAST unequal paycheck, not the first. The holding was that EVERY unequal paycheck constituted a new and separate act of discrimination which was continuous from its inception. The USSCt rescinded longstanding precedent, ignoring the extenuating circumstances in equal pay cases, where employers actively conceal employee wages from each other. They ignored evidence compiled over the years of continuing discrimination.
The Lily Ledbetter Act restores that rule of law, and again, employers are responsible to assure that employees are paid equally for their work.
Bookmarks