Binders Full of Lawsuits, with Women!

Shortly after Justice O'Connor retired, Justice Ginsburg said that she was "lonely" on the bench. She had just become the sole woman on the Supreme Court. Ginsburg expressed her belief that she and O'Connor had brought certain sensitivities to the court, a quality that the other justices could not because they did not grow up as women.

Fast forward to the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. case, were Ginsburg displayed a passionate dissent. Not only would she read the dissent but she called the 5-4 majority "acrimonious" and called for Congress to change the law. Congress listened to the "lonely" woman.

Justice Ginsburg must have been sensitive to Lilly Ledbetter's case because in a way, they shared similar roles. Both of them had experienced the solace of being the only woman in a profession full of men. Lilly Ledbetter, a district manager for Goodyear for a number of years, was the only woman out of 28 managers. That is  somewhat different than having only eight male colleagues on the bench. And Lilly Ledbetter also had to face extremely disproportionate pay in relation to her male counterparts.

After the Supreme Court reversed a three million jury verdict for Ledbetter, Democrat lawmakers sprung into action. Ginsburg's statement that the "ball was in Congress' court," sent a message. You better have your glove and bat ready because it is time to run onto the field of legislation. 

But what was the effect of the Ledbetter v. Goodyear case? How would Congress shape the new legislation? 

The Supreme Court held in Ledbetter v. Goodyear that the statute of limitations had barred her claim because she brought the action 180 days after the discriminatory act. The majority, five men, determined that the alleged discrimination occurred when they decided to set her pay far below her male counterparts. In strictly applying the statute, the court stated that the discrimination did not occur when she was actually paid. This precluded her from being able to recover under Title VII. 

Lawmakers from both the House and the Senate began to craft new language extending the statute of limitations and defining the discrimination in a more liberal way. The new legislation agreed upon, by mostly democrats, would allow women to bring a discrimination suit after they had learned of the pay discrimination, and would not time bar the suit in relation to the discriminatory act. Although it was passed before President Obama was elected, it would be the first piece of legislation signed by him.

Reactions from both sides were predictable. Democrats hit a home run, expanding the role of women in the workplace and Republicans were outraged that employers would now have to face more lawsuits from the damn plaintiff's bar. 

Both are right to an extent. But, I feel that if we are to error; let us error on the side of equality in the workplace. When there is a woman's perspective at work, the company will be better suited to succeed.

I strongly disagree with Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum's statement.  He recently said that the, "[Lilly Ledbetter Act] had nothing to do with changing the law with respect to pay for women or rights for women. It simply gave lawyers a longer time to sue..." 

Lawyers do not simply sue an employer for the hell of it. Lawyers have clients, and some of those clients may happen to be women who have faced discrimination. When most attorney's decide whether to take a case, he or she makes certain that the case has merit. Lawyers are bound to an oath of responsibility and despite what Senator Santorum says, will pursue a claim only if there sufficient evidence of discrimination.

Besides, this can only be good for employers. Businesses will take precaution in assessing the pay of employees and it will ensure that a person's  pay will be determined by their work, not their gender. There may be more discrimination suits initially, but the courts will delineate guidelines on when is the appropriate time to bring a suit in accordance with the Lilly Ledbetter Act.

Justice Ginsburg and Lilly Ledbetter may have shared adversity in explicating a woman's perspective to a group of men. But one thing is for sure; a whole country full of men have now heard a woman's opinion, and it is now the law of the land.

Negative Action: Why the Supreme Court Should Not Change Current Law

Chief Justice John Roberts was sworn in on September 29, 2005 with thunderous applause and praise. His appointment was seen as a win for conservatives and for originalism judicial philosophy. Despite the clear victory for traditional moral values, the Chief Justice expressed that his bipartisanship appointment proved that "judging is different from politics."

Boy, was he wrong. Politics soon became intertwined with the highest court when "Obamacare" was upheld.

The Affordable Care Act was arguably the most watched Supreme Court Decision in modern history. By the end of the day, after Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court liberals, he was vilified and called a traitor. Rand Paul said, “just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so..." Actually Rand, it does.

Now, Justice Kennedy has the same opportunity to be scorned. His swing vote decision on the current affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas, will give him an opportunity to put the judiciary branch in direct line with the political line of fire.

But like Roberts, Kennedy should not fear the conservative's wrath. He should keep current law in place or uphold the tradition of encouraging diversity in schools. I have first hand knowledge that a diversified school can lead to a better understanding of others and ourselves.

The first woman on the Supreme Court Justice believed this sentiment too when in 2003, Grutter v. Bollinger, she put in place the standard for how universities may consider race as a factor.

Justice O'Connor said race may be used in a flexible non mechanic way with a number of other factors by admissions offices when they determine who will be the next batch of students. This "holistic review" has worked and almost all universities want to keep the current system in place.

Besides schools wanting a diverse student body to ensure that the best and brightest students resembles the make up of the public, there is overwhelming evidence that race relations is still a problem today. A Newsweek poll suggests that minorities still feel that relations between race have stagnated or deteriorated.  

The Trayvon Martin incident has split opinions on racial lines, the Arizona immigration law has brought attention to racial profiling, and the birther issue has led to questions of blatant racism.

One way these problems can be addressed is to ensure that students learn besides students of other races, socioeconomic backgrounds, and religion. When universities accept students based upon factors of race and other criteria, it will allow friendships to be made and differences to be embraced. This will lead to progress in race relations.

I graduated high school from an affluent, mostly white school, in Temecula. When I stepped foot into my law school after attending UCI, I met people from a wide variety of backgrounds. I was challenged for the first time to rethink some of my ideas related to affirmative action. Now that I have graduated, I know that a diverse student body is indelible to a career in law. The American Bar Association agrees, filing an amicus curiae brief in Fisher v. University of Texas to voice its support of our current law.

Justice O'Connor said in 2003 that “we expect...that 25 years from now, the use or racial preferences will no longer be necessary.” If the court agrees with her, it should keep Grutter in place until 2028. I think there is still some time left.

When Justice Kennedy makes his decision he should remember the words of Justice O'Connor. He definitely shouldn't consider the political assault on John Roberts. Maybe then Roberts statement will be correct. The Supreme Court will never have to bow to political pressure.