Background
Gender discrimination is a vice that dominates the labor market with women earning at least 21% below the average earnings of their male colleague in similar positions (Council of Economic Advisers, 2016). The U.S. government has tried to enhance equality via regulations such as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Equal Pay Act (EPA) of 1963, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2005 among other laws (Cho & Kramer, 2014). These laws eliminated most of the issues that inhibited equal payments and opportunities for women. For instance, the argument that companies paid women lesser than men in similar positions due to their inadequate education was eradicated by the 1972 regulations thus increasing the number of women with higher education to the point that there are more women graduates than there are male graduates in almost all courses (Cho & Kramer, 2014). However, gender and race wage-gap has been a thorn in the American workforce.
History of the Lilly Ledbetter Act
The Paycheck Fairness Act under the study and guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hindered the ability of victims of discriminatory payment to sue organizations for their unfair treatment after 180 days (Council of Economic Advisers, 2016). These limitations and the organizations’ policies against paycheck transparency among employees promote the unequal payment with the victims having no access to justice against the organization if they realize they were underpaid after 180 days. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (LLFPA) signed into law by President Obama on January 29, 2009, would eliminate the timeline limitations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The law aimed at eliminating the problem faced by Lilly Ledbetter, who worked as a supervisor at a Goodyear Plant, in search for justice (Council of Economic Advisers, 2016). Lilly had worked for years in the plant until before taking an early retirement that she realized that she had been earning 15% less than the lowest male supervisor in the plant. She filed a lawsuit against the plant asserting pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under the EPA among other sex discrimination (Sullivan, 2009). However, the United Supreme Court in a 5-4 sided with the defendant claiming that Lilly Ledbetter’s claims were time-barred because it was over 180 days after receiving her payments. The U.S. Congress taking into account the proposed changes in the ruling formed the Lilly Ledbetter bill but President Bush vetoed the bill (Sullivan, 2009). However, Obama was quick to sign the bill in an attempt to fulfill his campaign promise of enhancing equality in the labor market.
The Impacts of the LLFPA
The signing of the LLFPA overturned the United State Supreme Court by eliminating the time barriers which resulted in Goodyear compensating Ledbetter. The major impacts were the restoration of pay discrimination claims in pending cases, claims not yet filed, and appealed cases at the time of enactment of the LLFPA. Some of the main cases include the Mikula v. Allegheny County that led to the Third Circuit to side with the plaintiff who earned $7,000 less than her male colleagues to receive a pay increment and compensation for the years between 2001 and 2009. Other cases such as Johnson v. District of Columbia, Goodlett v. Delaware, among others that had been time-barred in the previous ruling were reopened (Council of Economic Advisers, 2016; National Women's Law Center, 2013). The LLFPA has been instrumental in providing justice for wage discrimination due to gender and race to hold their employers accountable without being barred by the 180 to 300 days that made it easier for companies to get away with wage discrimination. Since the signing of the LLFPA, the gender wage gap has reduced by almost 2%. However, the 21% wage gap is still too large when compared to other OECD such as New Zealand and Norway which have a gender-based wage gap of 6.8% and 8.1% respectively (Council of Economic Advisers, 2016).
Major Issues
Conflict and diverging conclusions by different courts have inhibited LLFPA’s success. For example, it is unclear whether the law is applicable in other laws such as ADA of 1990 or limited to gender. In some cases, it is applied whereas in others it is not (National Women's Law Center, 2013). Cases that were not in appeal and had been closed before the LLFPA were not reopened thus denying justice for people who suffered past injustices.
References
Cho, R., & Kramer, A. (2014). Everything you need to know about the Equal Pay Act. Retrieved April 5, 2019, from https://www.icrw.org/publications/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-equal-pay-act/
Council of Economic Advisers. (2016). The Gender Pay Gap on the Anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Retrieved April 5, 2019, from https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/1580/
National Women's Law Center. (2013). THE LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 2009: EMERGING ISSUES. Retrieved April 5, 2019, from https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/lilly_ledbetter_emerging_issues_01.08.2013.pdf
Sullivan, C. (2009). Raising the Dead? The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. SSRN Electronic Journal .
