Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Of 2009 - Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, let me first say, I adamantly oppose and abhor discrimination of any kind, whether it is based on gender, age, religion, disability or race. I am a father to two daughters. I have five granddaughters and two great-granddaughters. I want all of my granddaughters to know that their goals and achievements will only be limited by their own ambition rather than a despicable act of gender discrimination. There is no place for discrimination in our country, and all of my colleagues share this belief. No side in this debate is in favor of gender discrimination.

The matter before the Senate is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act seeks to overturn a Supreme Court decision that the sponsors contend has removed statutory protections against discrimination, in this case, pay discrimination. The Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire held that a plaintiff alleging pay discrimination unde r title VII must file a claim within the statutory filing period of the alleged discrimination.

It is unfair to individuals who were unknowingly discriminated against to have a strict statute of limitations that prevent them from bringing suit once they discover the discrimination. I could not agree more. An individual should not be precluded from seeking justice simply because they were not aware of the discrimination. This is the situation that the proponents of the Ledbetter bill seek to address.

Statutes of limitations have always stood in some tension, and it is our job as the elected representatives of plaintiffs and defendants across this co untry to strike the necessary balance. We need to ensure that law does not sanction hidden discrimination nor effectively eliminate the statute of limitations.

The supporters of this bill have offered their version of a solution to this problem. The underlying bill would essentially reset the clock on the statute of limitations every time a new paycheck was received by an individual who was discriminated against in the past. They believe this is necessary regardless of how long in the past the claim of discrimination occurred. It would effectively eliminate the statute of limitations for discrimination claims.

The underlying bill also goes far beyond the stated objective of providing justice to those who have been subject to concealed discrimination. Instead, it could have the exact opposite effect of hindering efforts to quickly resolve discrimination claims. By pushing claims off indefinitely into the future, the bill creates a separation between the discriminatory act and the filing of a claim maki ng cases harder to prove and more costly to defend. Simply put, the bill offered by Senator Mikulski greatly expands the existing statute further than it was before the Supreme Court decided the Ledbetter case.

While I believe the Mikulski bill goes too far, I do believe Congress should act to ensure discrimination claims are not simply ignored. As I said before, we need to find the right balance. I believe that balance is found with the alternative bill offered by my colleague, Senator Kay Bail ey Hutchison. Her amendment essentially codifies a discretionary approach that courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have applied in these cases for years.

The fact is, the Supreme Court and the EEOC have long recognized that statutes of limitation or charge-filing periods can be extended or ``tolled'' in circumstances where the discrimination is hidden or concealed. Simply put, defendants shouldn't be able to run out the clock just because they hide the discrimination or it is unkno wn to the victim.

The Hutchison alternative simply codifies this doctrine of equitable tolling. The Hutchison amendment provides that the clock on the charge-filing deadline does not start running until an employee discovers the discrimination or should have discovered the discrimination. This thoughtful, balanced approach protects the rights of the employee if the discrimination was concealed, but also ensures that the claim can be resolved timely. The Hutchison amendment codifies the flexibility of th e claim-filing deadline when the discrimination is concealed, rather than effectively eliminating the deadline outright. It is the type of balanced, measured approach we as legislators are elected to find.

While it is my sincere hope that in this day and age no employer treats individuals differently based on gender, I am a cosponsor and strongly support the Hutchison amendment and believe it is the best possible way to ensure that the rights of all individuals are protected from discrimination.

Unfortunately, this balanced amendment was rejected by the majority, as were a number of other thoughtful, balanced, and needed amendments offered by colleagues on my side of the aisle. Because those efforts to improve the bill and minimize unintended consequences were rejected, I must vote against the bill. I regret that the Senate was unable to work in a more bipartisan manner to address the serious issue of gender discrimination.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source