Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009--Continued

Floor Speech

LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 2009--Continued -- (Senate - January 22, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Thank you, Madam President. And I thank Senator Mikulski.

First, let me commend Senator Mikulski for her extraordinary leadership on this legislation, along with Senator Harkin and also Senator Kennedy, who have been a driving force to ensure this legislation came to the floor and is ready for passage.

I strongly support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. This bill is about ensuring that all Americans are protected from pay discrimination and treated fairly in the workplace, particularly during these tough economic times. After 8 years of enduring an economy rigged to benefit only the wealthy few, it is about time we reached out to try to help those struggling paycheck to paycheck, and this legislation will do that.

As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I am plea sed this bill seeks to address and correct the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. It is a decision from 2007 that required employees to file a pay discrimination claim within 180 days of when their employer first began to discriminate, even if the discrimination continued after that 180-day period.

Under the Ledbetter ruling, a worker could face longstanding pay discrimination and yet be shortchanged of a remedy simply because they did not discover the discrimination wit hin 180 days of their initial discriminatory paycheck.

The Ledbetter decision overturned established precedent in courts of appeals across the country and the policy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under both Democratic and Republican administrations. In fact, it almost defies common sense and logic. Most employees, if they have a pay dispute, hope it will be resolved internally, and they will give their employer the benefit of the doubt probably for more than 180 days until it becomes re adily apparent that this is systematic and discriminatory.

The legislation we are considering today reverses this erroneous finding but also restores a sense of common sense into the workplace. It returns the law to the pre-Ledbetter precedent by clarifying that each discriminatory paycheck restarts that 180-day period. As such, this bill does not modify the time limit for filing a claim or the 2-year limit on back pay but reestablishes when the statute of limitations begins to run.

This allows work ers to demonstrate and detect a pattern or cumulative series of employer decisions or acts showing ongoing pay discrimination rather than simply reacting to any perceived notion of discrimination to fall within this 180-day period. As Justice Ginsburg noted in her Ledbetter dissent, such a law is ``more in tune with the realities of the workplace.'' I entirely agree.

The Supreme Court majority failed to recognize these commonsense realities, including that pay disparities typically occur incrementally a nd develop slowly over time, and they are not easily identifiable and are often kept hidden by employers. Many employees generally do not have knowledge of their fellow coworkers' salaries or how decisions on pay are made.

Our Nation has certainly made progress on ensuring fairness, justice, and equality in the workplace. However, we know there are still significant barriers to overcome in closing the pay gap and making certain that an individual's gender, race, religion, national origin, disability, an d age are not an impediment to their economic and employment growth and prosperity. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is one important step toward achieving this goal.

Again, let me thank Senator Mikulski for leading the charge on this bill and, again, acknowledge the longstanding efforts of Chairman Kennedy to seek passage of this and other legislative efforts to help workers. One of the great dilemmas we face today ensuring that Americans who are working--particularly wage earners--have sufficient income so they can provide for their families and for their future.

Because of the flat and, in some cases, the receding income of working Americans over the last 8 years, we have seen a situation where they have to resort to their credit cards, where they have to put off important purchases, deny themselves opportunities, scale down access to colleges for their children because their income has not grown.

The great challenge--and it is not just an economic challenge but, I believe, it is a moral challenge--is to ensure that the income of every level of America grows; not just the very wealthy, but every level of Americans has a chance to use their talents and see those talents rewarded by increasing income, we hope, each year. This legislation is part of that effort. But much more must be done.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and to oppose any amendments that seek to dilute its intent.

Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source