[Women] need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else...And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them....It's a vicious cycle that's affecting women, particularly in a part of the country like this, where mining is the mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say the least.
I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems.....This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system.
The only ones who will see an increase in pay are some of the trial lawyers who bring the cases.
[The Ledbetter Act would] impede justice and undermine the important goal of having allegations of discrimination expeditiously resolved.
By applying the paycheck rule broadly, it is possible that claims could be filed decades after an allegedly discriminatory act occurred. By applying the rule to pension annuities as well, a cause of action could arise decades after the individual ceased to work for the employer….Subjecting employers to such claims would literally lead to an explosion of litigation second guessing legitimate employment and personnel decisions.
As a small-business owner, you are most likely too busy to be able to take the time to carefully review the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, a complicated, vague bill that will have harmful effects on small business. As you'll soon learn, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 is anything but fair to small business. Tell your senator to vote ‘NO’ on this erroneous piece of legislation.
When disagreements and disputes in the workplace fester and potential damage amounts increase, compromise and cooperation become far more difficult. Ms. Ledbetter claimed, however, that she was entitled by a special ‘paycheck rule’ applicable only to claims of alleged pay discrimination, to sleep on her rights for decades before raising her concerns with the EEOC.
By contrast, the dissent’s argument that a discrimination plaintiff can sue based on each paycheck she receives, if her current paycheck was somehow affected by discrimination in the distant past, would allow plaintiffs to sue based on discrimination that occurred decades before, even if the employer is innocent, the alleged discriminators have all died, and the employer no longer has access to any evidence that could vindicate it…That is fundamentally unfair, and at odds with the whole purpose of having a statute of limitations.
Petitioner, however, seeks a rule that would effectively eliminate any meaningful period of limitation in certain kinds of discriminatory pay claims, allowing an employee to wait years or even decades to challenge an allegedly discriminatory decision so long as the economic consequences of that decision have continued into the limitations period. Such a rule would be irreconcilable with Congress’ design for the administration of Title VII, and would subject the employers…to damages for entirely innocent decisions that have nonetheless become difficult or impossible to defend solely because of the passage of time….such a rule would impose an unwarranted and excessive burden on employers…
A 1978 article described the fight against the Pregnancy Discrimination Act as lead by "Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., the National Association of Manufacturers and other business groups. They argue that pregnancy, as a 'voluntary" condition', should not be equated with illness…"
