Sex discrimination has been against the law for some time. This bill would clarify what the law means. It is necessary because the Supreme Court ruled in a recent case that a woman who had been discriminated against for many, many years, but had no way to know of the discrimination because of company policies against supervisors revealing their own compensation, that she should have filed her discrimination suit when the discrimination first occurred (even though she had no way to know of the discrimination). The bill clarifies that discrimination doesn't just occur one time, it occurs every payday that she gets less money than her male counterparts doing the same job.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin...
H.R.2831 : To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.
Question US
Is McCain sexist for opposing equal pay bill for women?
Chr*stopher April 24, 2008 21:41:59
- 59 answers
- Read all 112 comments
- +7 raves
Republican Senator John McCain said he opposes a Senate bill that seeks equal pay for women, because it would create unnecessary lawsuits. The bill sought to counteract a Supreme Court decision limiting how long workers can wait before suing for pay discrimination. It is named for Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Alabama, who sued for pay discrimination just before retiring after a 19-year career there. Ledbetter made $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor and claimed earlier decisions by supervisors kept her from making more.
Senate Republicans killed the bill Wednesday night on a 56-42 vote that denied the measure the 60 votes needed to advance it to full debate and a vote. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both support the measure.
Senate Republicans killed the bill Wednesday night on a 56-42 vote that denied the measure the 60 votes needed to advance it to full debate and a vote. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both support the measure.
Loading... 
Top Comment
-
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
View thread
SodaHead Hot Trends
No, I agree with McCain. There would be too many lawsuits if this bill passed.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
No, I agree with McCain. There would be too many lawsuits if this bill passed.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
No, I agree with McCain. There would be too many lawsuits if this bill passed.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
He's wrong about the lawsuits being unnecessary. This is a social justice issue that can only be addressed by going to law.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
No, I agree with McCain. There would be too many lawsuits if this bill passed.
I think the same can be said for the entire middle class. The middle class has seen insignificant increase in pay compared to the market as a whole over the last 20 years. Middle class Americans need to be demanding better wages and not just accepting what rich corporate asshole give you.
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Undecided
Undecided
No, I agree with McCain. There would be too many lawsuits if this bill passed.
I think of it this way- if a bill is introduced and someone else shoots it down out of hand, it was likely a poorly concieved bill. It was worded in such a way as to make the people who had no choice but to strike it down look bad.
The people who introduced it knew how McCain would react, this is the only reason for it being brought up now. Regardless of the proceedings after the fact, those who introduced the arguement (not the bill) would have the ability to say "Oh, look at him! He's a sexist!"
Read through the rest of the comments on this thread and you will find a good bit of information about the bill, and links to more information.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Because partisan politics have no place in US government, right?
Who sent the case up for debate?
(I see it was first "introduced" in July of 2007. Why is it only now that a vote happens?)
What other activities has Congress been looking at recently?
And yes, these kinds of thins that to the public look very straightforward (and often even to those voting on it) are in fact aimed at certain groups. This is the reason for ear-marking. It is both effecitve at getting money to unrelated causes, and being a "deal breaker" that can be used against the target.
I don't like the guy, but Chris Matthews explains the mechanics quite well in his book "Hardball."
Yes, McCain's opposition to an equal pay bill for women is sexist. I demand equality.
Undecided
"Republican Senator John McCain said he opposes a Senate bill that seeks equal pay for women, because it would create unnecessary lawsuits."
Shame on you Christopher, I dislike seeing someone twist words to mean something other than what was intended... Actually the following was said...
"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."
The bill sought to counteract a Supreme Court decision limiting how long workers can wait before suing for pay discrimination.
It is called "fine tuning" the law... It has to do with setting a time limit on how long they can wait before suing... not IF they can sue.....
Lilly Ledbetter was not claiming ignorance of the LAW. She was claiming that her employer kept her ignorant of the FACTS. Not the same thing, at all.
I am fully aware of what Lilly claimed. However, Title VII law stands on its own.
In Lilly's case, there was a statue of limitations under Title VII. While she did establish a prima facie case, she failed to meet Title VII's timely-filing rule.
Ledbetter's evidence was limited to events that took place after Sept. 26, 1997, or 180 days prior to her EEOC charge. The rule is meant to foster quick and efficient resolution, in addition to protecting companies from being slapped with lawsuits from years prior.
On May 29, 2007, a divided Supreme Court upheld the 11th Circuit's decision, finding that the limitations period for a disparate pay claim cannot be extended or disregarded.
Ledbetter should have filed an E.E.O.C. charge within 180 days after each allegedly discriminatory pay decision was made and communicated to her. She did not do so, (and thus her ignorance was no excuse) and the paychecks that were issued to her during the 180 days prior to the filing of her E.E.O.C. charge did not provide a basis for overcoming that prior failure.