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.