S.181 - Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

A bill 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 (5)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: A bill 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.
  • Short: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Short: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 as enacted.

Comments Feed

luckyp3616 05/15/2010 3:00pm
in reply to Anonymous Feb 08, 2009 5:15am

I say that ANY discrimination should be illegal. I am a man, but I see it as it does not make sense to not pay them the same. So just pay them the same! Do we really need to make it hard for my mother (she is a single mother.)

Anonymous 02/08/2009 5:15am
in reply to Anonymous Feb 07, 2009 5:53pm

If you truly believe this, then you believe that all the boys are smarter and/or harder workers than all the girls - and it’s simply not true.
I’ve been asked (after it was illegal to do so) whether my husband was happy with the sex of our children (wondering would I get pregnant again)- not to answer would have lost me the job. I was also told point blank that a male co-worker who was not as experienced or productive was getting a bigger raise because he was going through a divorce and needed the money.
Some guys hire the dumbest woman they can find and when she can’t do the job - argue that their self-fulfilling prophecy was correct — women just can’t cut it. Enough — equal pay for equal work is the law whether you happen to agree with it or not.

Anonymous 02/07/2009 5:53pm
in reply to yzERp Feb 05, 2009 2:38pm

The act is only changing the time period of when a complaint must be made. It is unfair for someone experiencing descrimination and be bound by the previous 180 from date of employment to make a complaint.

Also, just because a women makes less than a man, does not necessarily mean she experiences discrimination. Perhaps she makes less over time because her performance was lacking or her skill set did not expand. If this is the case, the company should have records to prove its case that there was no discrimination. However, it is only just to give the employee the opportunity to make a complaint when they get information that indicates they have experienced descrimination. The previous decision did not give them that justice. This law does.

yzERp 02/05/2009 2:38pm
in reply to ghost122 Feb 03, 2009 10:54pm

Constitutionally, this is a state issue, not a federal issue. The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to deal with such matters.

If a woman works as efficiently as a man, of course I feel she should be payed equally, but the government should not ‘mandate’ this, because it’s arbitrary — not all women are as efficient in the workplace as some men, just as not all men are as efficient as some women.

But it shouldn’t be a government issue. If someone doesn’t accept their working conditions — salary, raises, etc — then it is up to them to quit their job and find another one. But if they /do/ accept them, and accept the salary they are offered, and accept the fact that they’re not getting a raise when they feel like they should be, how is that anyone’s fault but their own? Quit the job, or join a union which works for womens’ working rights, or have such protections worked into your contract before you sign it.

“Otherwise, I’m sure women would be making 25 cents on the dollar for every dollar a man earns instead of 79 cents.”
-

With all due respect: if women were truly as efficient as men in the workplace, and companies were ‘allowed’ to pay them much less than men (which they are, just as they are allowed to pay men much less than women; it’s up to the employee to decide whether to accept the conditions)… don’t you think there’d be a heckuva lot more women in the workplace than men?

ghost122 02/03/2009 10:54pm

Anonymous of Feb 3rd and yzERp, you obviously are male and have never been discriminated against. Agreeing to a specific pay initially and then, say, not getting a 5% raise when your performance evaluation would indicate you should, but getting 3% instead while male employees doing the same job automatically get 5% IS discrimination.

Often, if a woman questions her compensation level, threats of a reprimand or loss of the job follow. Or if a woman advocates for a higher raise because her performance merits it, she’ll be chastised for not accepting the offered lower rate. Meanwhile, men who perform at a lower level will receive a higher rate. This happens all the time and it is exactly why the government must mandate equal pay. Women who “fight for more” are seen as “nagging, whiny or bitchy” whereas men who “fight for more” as seen as “assertive, tough or strong”.

Furthermore, most companies make it a state secret what everyone else is being paid, so often the discrepancy doesn’t come to light for a long time. Not the woman’s fault nor should she be penalized for it. Women are only a “lawsuit waiting to happen” IF they are being discriminated against. How about being fair when it comes to pay and other perks/benefits/demands/assignments and then the company won’t have to worry about “a bevy of lawyers”?

It is exactly your attitude which has made it necessary for laws promoting fairness to women in the workplace to be passed. Otherwise, I’m sure women would be making 25 cents on the dollar for every dollar a man earns instead of 79 cents.

Anonymous 02/03/2009 2:06pm
Link Reply
+ -1

If she agrees to her pay, then that is what she should get paid. Even if her pay ‘slips’ over time, that is her fault for not fighting for more. Yes, some people (male and female) get the shaft when it comes to pay, that’s the breaks if they agree to it.
Now that women are even more of a lawsuit waiting to happen, who will want to hire them unless they have a bevy of lawyers to protect themselves?

parkrrr 02/02/2009 2:19am
in reply to yzERp Jan 31, 2009 8:23am

Well, yeah. When she was hired everything was great. Her pay relative to her male counterparts slipped over time. And because the current law says you cannot file for discrimination after 180 days from which you were hired Lilly couldn’t challenge this.

Anonymous 01/31/2009 10:48am

The government got involved because it was a case of discrimination. The salary she was paid wasn’t so much the issue as was the fact that (according to the case) her males counterparts were being paid much more for the same job, even those with less experience and skills. There was a pay bias unrelated to skills, experience, performance, or other job-related factors so it looks like they were discriminating and therefore breaking the law.

Ironically the government passes EEO legislation giving employees in private industry 180 days to put together and file a discrimination complaint but employees in many federal agencies only get 45 days.

yzERp 01/31/2009 8:23am
Link Reply
+ -3

Why is government involving itself in issues like this?

When you accept a job, you accept the amount of income you’re offered. That means, if you agree to X dollars per year, then that’s what you /agreed/ to, and that’s what you get; even if another employee gets paid more or less, that simply does not matter, because you agreed to the contract and therefore the income you were offered.

parkrrr 01/25/2009 4:30pm
in reply to tnsbyrd Jan 23, 2009 7:49am

It says that if there’s a limit on something (in Lilly’s case, a 180 day limit to file for discrimination), that the limit should be based on the date of the last paycheck, not the date that employment began.

tnsbyrd 01/23/2009 7:49am
Link Reply
+ -1

Huh? I have NO idea what this means. Can you write this in English please?

zio56 01/15/2009 6:33am
Link Reply
+ -1

S.166 is a better alternative.


Vote on This Bill

50% Users Support Bill

90 in favor / 90 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments