The Balance of the Court Has Shifted

The New York Times Editors wrote a scathing editorial yesterday regarding the Supreme Court and the recent decision in a sex discrimination case that marks a dramatic turn for the Supreme Court of the United States in which the "Court once stood for the advantaged, but now protects the powerful." Alito ( did not he belong to a society at Princeton that excluded women?)delivered the opinion of the court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in a 5-4 decision that makes it more difficult for employees to sue their employer in pay discrimination cases (Title VII).

A supervisor who happened to be a woman (the only woman among that management level) at a Gadsen, Alabama tire plant worked for the company for 20 years and was paid less than all other 16 supervisors at her level including people (MEN) with less seniority. She learned this fact late in her career, 20 years in in fact. The court held (and this is worth quoting Linda Greenhouse at the NY Times): "that employees may not bring suit under the principal federal anti-discrimination law unless they have filed a formal complaint with a federal agency within 180 days after their pay was set. The time line applies, according to the decision, even if the effects of the initial discriminatory act were not immediately apparent to the worker and even if they continue to the present day."

Title VII requires that employees file their discriminatory claim within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. The Court in the face of precedent calculated the time back to the last raise Ledbetter received and argued it did not matter that she was still receiving far less than her male counterparts. The editors argued that the Supreme Court ignored the realities of the workplace; employees do not know how much other employees earn enough to exact when the discrimination is occurring. Ledbetter's salary was initially the same as the men, but received smaller raises than her male counterparts earning (in 1998 when she originally filed suit) $3,727 a month, while the lowest-paid man was making $4,286.

In her dissent Justice Ginsberg argued there is clear Supreme Court precedent (in a race discrimination case) that every pay check calculated under the basis of discrimination is unlawaful under Title VII. Federal courts overwhelmingly agree as well as the EEOC, the agency charged with enforcing Title VII. The balance of the court has clearly shifted with Alito and Roberts added to the court.

In her dissent Ginsberg invited Congress to overturn the decision. She said "once again the ball is in Congress' court." Senator Clinton declared she intended to file a bill overturning the ruling.