In my days as a fledgling court reporter in Virginia, the Commonwealth still clung to a few colonial traditions. In Richmond we had a Court of Chancery, two Hustings Courts, and more to the point, we had two Courts of Law and Equity. A judge educated me in the terminology:
"Law," he explained, "is one thing. Equity is often something else."
The distinction came to mind last week when the Supreme Court split 5-4 in the case of Lilly M. Ledbetter. Equity was on her side — the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. had treated her badly — but the law was on the side of Goodyear. And because the high court is little concerned with what is "fair," or "equitable," or even with what is "just," she lost and Goodyear won.
The facts were not in dispute. In 1979 Ledbetter went to work for Goodyear as a salaried employee in the company's plant in Gadsden, Ala. She took early retirement in 1998. Subsequently she discovered that almost from the beginning of her employment as an area manager, she had been paid significantly less than 15 male employees with identical responsibilities. Toward the end of her employment, Goodyear was paying her at the rate of $44,724 a year. Her male counterparts were pocketing $51,432.
When Ledbetter belatedly learned of the discrepancy, she complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Under what is known as Title VII, it is unlawful for any covered employer "to discriminate against any individual with respect to her compensation because of such individual's sex."
But — there is always a "but" — the law says that claims under Title VII must be filed "within 180 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred." Manifestly, Ledbetter's claim was time-barred. Under the law, she was out of court before she ever got in.
How could this be? Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the five-man majority, was unwilling "to jettison the defining element of the legal claim on which her Title VII recovery was based." He cited four cases in support of the majority's position.
The series began 30 years ago this week, when the high court ruled against flight attendant Carolyn Evans in her suit against United Air Lines on charges of sexual discrimination: Hired in 1966, she was fired in 1968. How come? In those antediluvian days, when female flight attendants were still called stewardesses, the airline had an ironclad policy: If you marry, you're out. Accordingly, United fired stewardess Evans. At the time, she made no timely challenge.
In 1972, under a new union contract, the airline hired her again, but treated her as a new employee for purposes of seniority. She complained that the company was "perpetuating the consequences of forbidden discrimination." Speaking, surprisingly, for a 7-2 court, Justice John Paul Stevens was sympathetic but unmoved. The law was clear:
"United was entitled to treat Evans' termination as lawful after she failed to file a charge of discrimination within the 90 days then allowed by the law. A discriminatory act which is not made the basis for a timely charge is merely an unfortunate event which has no present legal consequences."
As Justice Samuel Alito said last week, "It would be difficult to speak to the point more directly."
Nevertheless, dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke to the point at quite considerable length. (This time, Stevens was on her side.) Her colleagues, she said, had overlooked a common characteristic of pay discrimination:
"Pay disparities often occur, as they did in Ledbetter's case, in small increments; cause to suspect that discrimination is at work develops only over time. Comparative pay information, moreover, is often hidden from the employee's view. Employers may keep under wraps the pay differentials maintained among supervisors, no less the reasons for those differentials. Small initial discrepancies may not be seen as meet for a federal case, particularly when the employee, trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment, is averse to making waves."
In Ginsburg's view, Ledbetter had abundantly demonstrated that her pay was unfairly low because of "a long series of decisions reflecting Goodyear's pervasive discrimination against women managers in general and Ledbetter in particular." It is time, she said, for Congress to correct the court's "parsimonious" opinion.
After last week's opinion came down, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., announced she would seek to amend the Civil Rights Act to prevent a recurrence of the perceived injustice in Ledbetter's case. Go, Hillary, go!
(Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent by e-mail to kilpatjj@aol.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.
LawCrossing has many, many more listings than other conventional sources. David
Facts
LawCrossing Fact #153: We peruse a variety of job sources, which means you can use our industry-specific site to search for a specific job.
Enjoyed reading this article? Click here to sign up for News Wire, our weekly newsletter, and you'll receive articles just like this right in your inbox.
Enter your email address and start getting breaking law firm and legal news right now!
Reason 15: LawCrossing is the smartest $ you will ever spend, the same price as a pizza and some rented movies. Which is more beneficial to your long-term career?
Description:
Santa Rosa office seeks a senior tax attorney with 5 years of transactional tax experience. The ideal candidate should have corporate tax, executive compensation and tax opinion experience and a familiarity with real estate, partnership and tax credit transactions or a willingness to expand the practice into those areas. A portable book of business would be an additional attraction. "This firm's core practice areas are corporate and commercial, real estate, tax, estate planning, ...
