H.R.11 - Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes. view all titles (6)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Official: To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Official: To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes. as amended by house.
  • Short: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Paycheck Fairness Act as passed house.
  • Official: To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes. as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

  • stevesharris 01/09/2009 7:35am

    This bill enables a victim to have recourse as long as the unfair pay practices are taking place by expanding the 180 day statute of limiations by just the 1st violation, but will be applicable to each and every violation of law as it should. If this were any other crime against a person we would expect the same recourse so it should be no different in this case.

  • plenko 01/09/2009 10:16am

    This bill should’ve been passed when it was first considered a year or so ago. I’ve lobbied heavily for the passage since I first heard about it.

    I adamently support the passage of this bill (and I’m a guy!).

    Anyone who does NOT support this bill does NOT support paying women equally to men for the SAME job.

    Plus, there should be NO time limits on suing an employer for unpaid wages. You can’t blame an employee for not knowing he/she was gyped in salary by an employer.

    People, and not businesses, should always come first.

  • Anonymous 01/20/2009 11:30am

    If people “come before” businesses, there will be no business and no wealth creation and no jobs. I mean real jobs creating goods and services responsive to customers’ desires, not government “jobs” protected from any oversight and funded by printing money and going further into debt.

    There is no way to define the “right” salary, therefore no way to enforce this without arbitrary rulings, so it is inherently discriminatory, being at the whims of a judge. It will be financially ruinous to defend against, and financially ruinous to do all the paperwork to protect against accusations of “unfairness,” causing small businesses – who create most of the jobs in this country – to go bankrupt. And as we see large businesses are also not immune to the effects of bad regulation.

    No time limits means that no business can make any plans or consider hiring the right people because of fear of being prosecuted for arbitrary “crimes” and being sued at any time in the future over anything. Therefore hiring will slow to a crawl.

    I am a woman.

  • Anonymous 01/20/2009 11:40am

    PS As a woman, i want an economic climate in which employers need to hire MORE people, because they are growing because they are providing service to customers. In that climate there will be such a demand for workers that women will be able to command higher salaries.

  • linus 01/21/2009 7:38am

    plenko, you make a huge assumption in your comment. So much so that you ignore common sense factors.

    The coach for the Washington Mistics (women’s basketball) makes sustantially less than the coach for the Washington Wizards (men’s basketball). Is that fair? I would say yes because of the demand on the men’s coach and the popularity of the sport.

    Your comment also ignores the fact that people can support women and still think this is a bad law based on other reasons. I don’t support this bill because I don’t think the government should tell businesses how to run things. It doesn’t mean I don’t support women.

  • Comm_reply
    davidturetsky 04/17/2009 8:19am

    While I agree with your analysis of the coach compensation comparison, it ignores the extreme difference in market for Men’s and Women’s basketball. The better comparison is in a like region and like market such as investment bankers in New York or radiologists in Maryland. Study pay differences on the basis of appropriate markets and you will see that there are real discrepancies that do exist that cannot be explained by training, performance and tenure. The fact is that on-average, pay is not equal. This bill provides the ability for someone who was harmed by unfair wage determination practices to be compensated fairly.

    Your comments about telling business “how to run things” make no sense in the United States. We have been regulating interstate and intrastate commerce since colonial times. The United States is not a pure market economy and our political, judicial and legislative bodies enforce rules that protect our citizens and businesses from unfair treatment.

  • Anonymous 01/24/2009 9:39am

    I don’t think you can quantify the jobs done by two people that easily and attempting to do so ties up employees and employers that they can not do the “job” they are supposed to do. If you put this onus on employers, their efficiency in the marketplace will be so negatively affected, it will be more and more difficult to compete in the global economy. However, I do think employers should give equal pay for equal work as a matter of principle.

  • zjfelling 02/06/2009 10:45am

    It seems to me that most of you who voted no on this legislation are against any type of law regarding equal pay, not just changing the way statutes of limitation are applied. This obviously makes it a little tougher on businesses; however, that’s no excuse not to stand up for working Americans. Many criticize the legislation by saying that it will have an adverse effect on women and the disabled because businesses will higher them less. Think about that. They should just accept that businesses pay them less in order to keep their jobs. This is America! If your view is government intervention is wrong, then we have a fundamental disagreement, but if you support minimum wage laws, you support government intervention. Having a minimum wage decreases the number of people employed, yet we still have the minimum wage. We do not say that men must accept less just to remain employed. Why are women and the disabled any different?

  • john2000 03/18/2009 10:55pm

    Just another self-serving litigation tub.

  • melzellers 03/19/2009 4:53pm

    Why do the people need the government to tell them what to do? Why can’t we govern ourselves? Why are we letting the government take over our lives? Soon, they’ll control every aspect of our every human being.

  • NoBandwagon 05/27/2009 6:11am

    It is a free – all voulunteer – workplace out there in America. If you do not think you are getting paid enough go find another job, get a better education or just stop working. I am sick and tired of having to support “victims” that are people to lazy to work and want a handout by the democrat govornment to get thier way.

  • Comm_reply
    dctravis 06/18/2009 4:33am

    Amen, I too am sick of people who are to lazy to actually deserve a raise or just drag their feet as to not make their employer think they can work to fast as to not make them expect to much of them. The People are lazy and if an employer sees this I believe that he has every right to not give them a raise and if I were the employer I would fire them.


Vote on This Bill

43% Users Support Bill

46 in favor / 61 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments