[lbo-talk] The Supreme Court mixes up intending to screw over your employee and actually doing it

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 1 07:28:11 PDT 2007


Well, you have to sue within 180 or 300 days of the violation (depending on whether your state has a state civil rights agency to investigate with which you are supposed to report first), but the that can be interpreted as of 180/300 days of

1) The first time the first violation occurs or

2) the last in a series of "continuing violations," which is the way many repeated instances and in particular discriminatory pay violations had always been interpreted before, including by the SCt itself, where pay discrimination (in particular) was always read to involve a new violation with every paycheck, with a reach going back before the limitations period if the violation was "continuing," or

3) the first time you have notice of the violation, which is a standard construction of what starts the statute of limitations tolling, especially for remedial statutes like a civil rights law which, as a maxim of construction, are to be construed liberally.

It ain't cut an dried, and this is a serious departure from precedent.

--- Andy F <andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:


> On 5/31/07, andie nachgeborenen
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > discrimination. On appeal, Goodyear countered it
> > hadn't discriminated against Ledbetter—recently.
> Title
> > VII, the federal law that protects employees from
> > discrimination, requires them to file a charge
> within
> > a short period of time (180 or 300 days, depending
> on
> > the state) "after the alleged unlawful employment
> > practice occurred." In essence, Goodyear argued
> that
> > any discriminatory decisions it might have made
> about
> > Ledbetter's pay were made long before she filed.
>
> I was under the impression (from NPR, to be sure)
> that the crux, or
> excuse, was that the time limit was written clearly
> into the law, and
> that congress had to change it. Is there some angle
> that I'm missing,
> indicated perhaps by the close decision?
>
> --
> Andy
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

____________________________________________________________________________________ Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list