Login Here(Please welcome Nan Aron, president of AfJ, and Deborah Vagins, Policy Counsel for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the ACLU.)
Second installment of the First Monday partnership with Alliance for Justice.
Civil rights law is often discussed in terms of racial equality and discrimination, because that is the context in which most people have studied the fight for lifting the less powerful to a more equal footing. We have come a long way from the days of Frederick Douglass through to the mountaintop of Dr. King and beyond, but in so many ways we still have a long, long way to go.
Given the level of dog-whistle discussion on immigration, on crime, and on any number of other issues in the political arena and on talk radio in this country, no one should have any doubt that racial and ethnic discrimination is alive and well.
As a woman, especially one who has worked in some fairly male-centric environments in her day, I'm certainly well aware of the sort of blatant sexism that can derail or sideline someone solely because of gender, with nothing to do with talent or ability. Sometimes, that can work in your favor -- underestimation can be a potent advantage if you work it correctly in a courtroom -- but all too often it can sneak up on you, and you find out by chance that you've been shortchanged your whole working life.
Which is exactly what happened to Lilly Ledbetter, who is one of the people featured in the film "Supreme Injustices" above. (More on the Ledbetter case here and here.) Watch the film, meet Lilly...and realize that her story could be yours. Or someone you know and love.
Civil rights laws were put into place precisely to even the field, to put the much less powerful in a place to challenge decisions which were made on the basis of power and differences: the color of someone's skin, their age, their gender, their disability, who they happen to love, whatever might make an individual stand out for a reason that has nothing at all to do with how they might do their job. Or learn in school. Or whatever it is that they might dream of doing...but are blocked from achieving because of their difference.
"Equal justice under the law" should not simply be a phrase. It ought to be a guiding principle. In the film, Lilly Ledbetter says that she felt if she had a problem that needed to be addressed, that she could take it to the courts and get a fair hearing. But did she?
Our political decisions impact the composition of the federal courts -- because the judges who are appointed to a lifetime on the federal bench are selected for appointment by the President. One of the many important reasons to be involved in the political process is to help select a President who will take on that duty with a commitment to justice and fairness, and not simply as a plum reward position for political cronies.
The law is never simply a straight line. If it were, Brown v. Bd. of Education would never have been successful, and separate but equal would not have been struck down. We evolve, thankfully, and as we do the laws ought to change to our better understanding.
It is when the laws take a change backward toward past practices that questions arise as to why that has happened -- especially where the rationale for such a decision is as opaque as that in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. Where you have applicability across a wide range of civil rights laws -- as you do with Ledbetter -- a clear spelling out of the reasons that there is such an abrupt deviation from the accepted stare decisis in that area would have been helpful, if not expected. Unfortunately, it was not forthcoming from the Roberts Court. (See footnote 10 of the majority opinion on the discovery issue to see what I mean by opaque.)
But there is also a third branch of government involved in this process: the legislative branch. The House has already passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act to correct the decision from the Roberts court. From Rep. George Miller, the chief sponsor:
"With this vote, the House reaffirmed its commitment to America’s promise of fair and equal treatment for all people, and repudiated the Supreme Court’s ruling that made it easier for employers to discriminate against their workers," said Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the committee. “This issue is as basic as it gets. You should not be paid less because you are a woman. You should not be paid less because of the color of your skin or your religious beliefs. The Supreme Court has tried to roll back the clock on this issue of basic fairness, but Congress will not stand for it."
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would clarify that every paycheck or other compensation resulting, in whole or in part, from an earlier discriminatory pay decision constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act. As long as workers file their charges within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, their charges would be considered timely. This was the law prior to the Supreme Court’s May 2007 decision.
This act would apply across the board to discrimination based on "race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, or disability." The full House passed this on July 31st, 2007, and the Senate is currently working on matching legislation (S. 1843) spearheaded by Sen. Ted Kennedy and a number of others as well. (Long-time readers will note that we had Sen. Clinton on last year to talk about this legislation.) Additionally, Sen. Kennedy along with Rep. John Lewis have introduced new civil rights legislation to strengthen accountability for discrimination.
Where does this apply to you? Two ways:
Some day, you may be a victim of discrimination: some of us are people of color, or women, or disabled...but we all get older every day, and age discrimination is also a growing problem in terms of termination from employment and other issues. Also, you vote, and when you cast your ballot, something to keep in mind is that the person receiving your vote may either be a president who will appoint judges to sit on the federal bench, or they may be a Senator who will "advise and consent" on that appointment prospect. Or pass legislation to quash the overruling of a law that the court has recently struck down.
Whatever the case may be, our daily lives are filled with moments where a decision from a court somewhere along the line has made a difference. And our political decisions today can make an enormous difference in who will sit on those courts making decisions for the generations that follow. We need to choose more wisely. And to begin that process, we should discuss how to do just that.
Part I of Supreme Injustices is embedded at the top. Part II at the bottom left. For those needing other formats, Alliance for Justice has Windows and Quicktime available here.
Please welcome Nan Aron, president of AfJ, and some other folks from the Alliance for Justice, who put together the film we are seeing today. And also welcome Deborah Vagins, Policy Counsel for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the ACLU.
Share This 
Spotlight
Christy!
Zed. And, go Christy!
Hi everyone - this is Deborah from the ACLU. Christy - Thank you so much for setting this up. It’s a very important issue, and we appreciate your focus on it.
Top of the afternoon to you, Christy…
good lord - Kit Bond just said on the floor that the judges of the FISA Court aren’t as smart as Senator Whitehouse and that the existing oversight role should be left in place with the ‘robust’ oversight of the (burp) Intelligence Committee”.
mucho sorry for the early OfT…
Deborah — Thanks so much for being here today to talk with us about this. Afternoon everyone!
I actually just got off the phone with our coalition. This bill is a priority for Kennedy’s office, but right now we are trying to get as much support as possible in the Senate. As you know, it passed the House in July, but it was basically a partisan vote. We will need both Democratic and Republican support for this important fix if it is going to pass.
Deborah — One of the reasons we wanted to focus on this issue this month is the push on the Ledbetter pay equity legislation, along with the renewed interest in the civil rights legislation from Sen. Kennedy and Rep. Lewis. Given how the civil rights division at DOJ has been undercut and gutted throughout the Bush Administration, it is well past time for there to be much more attention paid to these issues by Congress.
Are there particular aspects of this that are most important in your mind at this point? Either from a litigation/appeals perspective or a legislative one?
Thank you for being here, Deborah. Does the Senate version, S. 1843, seem likely to pass? And seeing how this administration is so into retroactivity, could it possibly be made retroactive?
President Bush has already threatened to veto it and I know the Chamber of Commerce is heavily lobbying against it. But I would like to point out that many of the arguments against this bill just don’t make much sense. If folks are interested, I could talk about why this is a simple fix — just a return to the bedrock principles of civil rights law that have guided both employees and employers for decades.
Please do.
Thus far, it looks like there are 32 co-sponsors of S. 1843. All but two of whom are Democrats — only Specter and Snowe have signed on as co-sponsors on the R side of the aisle. So it could certainly use some push from constituents. Especially those with Senators who are up for re-election this cycle, including Susan Collins who, uncharacteristically, isn’t playing “follow the leader” with Snowe and supporting this bill as a co-sponsor as yet.
That would be great — thanks!
DIGG IT, digg mates
We’ve got to fight for our rights to keep them. And this is one more thing you can do to help spread the word. And don’t be shy over there, add a comment or two.
Sorry for the delay computer problems on my end…
Opponents of this legislation make several arguments that not only don’t make sense, but also, in some cases, would create absurd results never intended by Congress. First, obviously, an employee can’t sue before he or she knows of the discrimination. But this decision would require such an outcome. Even if an employee sues the day after she learns of the discrimination, it’s too late if the employer’s decision came 181 days before she discovered the illegal behavior. Why should companies unjustly profit from years and years of paying women and minorities less because the employer has been able to keep the discrimination secret?
Second, opponents of this bill say it will open the “floodgates” of litigation. However, this new rule set out by the Supreme Court doesn’t stop litigation – it may encourage it. Now employees will feel they have to file suits upon their first suspicion of discrimination or right after a pay decision, rather than wait for additional evidence, just to make sure they don’t run out of time. This is a ridiculous outcome from a public policy perspective, and even more so when one considers the fact that all this legislation is trying to do is put back into place a protection in employment cases that has been the law for years. There would be no huge flood of litigation with this fix in place – just a return to a rule that has been applied by courts for decades.
Third and finally, some opponents of this legislation argue that by using the paycheck to show ongoing discrimination, employees could wait 20, maybe 40, years of employment before suing, leaving companies in an uncertain position. Even assuming any court would entertain such a situation, on its face this argument makes no sense when one really considers the reality of the workplace for most Americans. What reasonable employee would wait in such a manner when every discriminatory paycheck amounts to lost wages, lost retirement or 401K benefits, and lost Social Security benefits? What reasonable employee would sit on a claim when that translates into less money for their families in every paycheck and more money in the pockets of an unjust employer? Also, let’s not forget it is the plaintiff that has the burden, and the tough burden, of proving her case. If she details, the lost evidence hurts her the most.
I think the computer problems may be related to how heavy the traffic is here today. I am very interested in your “simple fix”
In response to some of the questions - yes, we need calls of support into your Senators’ office. I have been talking with Collins’ office, and I am sure it would be helpful for her to hear from folks, especially in Maine, about how important this is.
As far as retroactivity is concerned, the bill would set the law back to where it was in May 2007, as if the case never happened.
Hi Christy and Deborah, thank you so much for doing this!
The discovery issue was the part of the majority opinion in Ledbetter that I found the most dishonestly convoluted. The footnote 10 issue that I alluded to in the post hits that point where they sort of fudge the fact that employers don’t exactly hold up a neon sign saying “we are screwing you by paying you less than your co-workers.” And to pretend that there is some equal access for people who are disempowered to discover corporate wrongdoing shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how the world works.
I can see the argument that mistakes — good faith ones, even — can be made and that companies could face substantial penalties for a good faith error. But, at the same time, bad faith decisions can also occur. Should a company benefit from its bad faith conduct because it was exceptionally good at hiding it and lying about it? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Right - this bill is a modest fix for the Ledbetter decision. Critically, this legislation will ensure employers do not profit from years of discrimination simply because their employees were unaware of it. The fix would reinstate the “paycheck accural rule” - which means that if you have received a paycheck that continues to be tainted with the effects of your employer’s past discriminatory decision - your claim is timely if you bring it within 180 days. Far from imposing a new rule on employers, however, reversing the Ledbetter decision would restore Congress’ legislative intent, as well as the law that prevailed in the majority of federal circuits and at the EEOC before the Supreme Court’s ruling. It reaffirms the fundamental principle that our civil rights protections are intended to have a broad remedial purpose – to make persons whole for injuries suffered because of unlawful employment discrimination.
Deborah — Have you seen analogous arguments made in other aspects of civil rights discrimination cases since the Ledbetter decision came down? I know there was a lot of discussion in the immediate aftermath of the case that the 180 day aspect might spill over to every type of civil rights discrimination case, which is why there has been so much legislative activity on the issue.
How much of that has occurred as defense argument for companies since then? Any that you have seen?
Again - sorry for the delay here - my computer is moving so slow, my responses my not seem timely, but I’m here and happy to answer any questions!
Yes, the issue of discover is really unfair here. The decision is just at odds with the realities of the workplace. As Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discussed in her dissent, the realities of a place of employment may prevent employees from detecting pay discrimination when it first occurs – it might take years to discover or happen by accident. Indeed, the majority of workers may never know the salaries of their coworkers. Many employers instruct employees not to share financial information at all. According to a recent study, only one in ten private sector employers has adopted a pay openness policy. Moreover, often pay disparities occur in small increments building up slowly, but steadily in an insidious way. Cause to suspect discrimination is at work may happen over time.
One other case that was discussed above in the film, but that I didn’t cover in depth in the post above was the desgregation/busing case from Louisville which struck down a busing program that had been in place for more than 50 years to try and undo generations of segregated education in that area. That case — series of cases, actually, because there were related decisions — has some substantial potential to alter the landscape in equality in education and how things have been done since the 1960s.
I know we have a number of educators who read here, and I’d love to hear thoughts from anyone who has dealt with these issues at their school or school district.
Gee, all those sounds like SOP R “reasoning” to me.
Yes, there is (and we still anticipate) a spillover effect. The ADA (disability) and the ADEA (age) are modeled after Title VII. Courts also used the paycheck accural rule to determine the timeliness of claims under those civil rights statutes. Anticipating the problem, the bill addresses these three civil rights bills. Also, while I am no longer litigating these cases (I used to in private practice and now I just work on policy), I understand that since the Ledbetter SC decision there have been several lower court decisions using the holding to say that claims on untimely.
One thing to keep in mind about Justice Ginsburg — she helped to found the Women’s Rights Project at the ACLU, and devoted an important portion of her legal career to opening doors for younger female lawyers like myself and women in so many other fields to be treated as equals and to be valued for their skills and intellect, and not simply as office window dressing. Which, in my mind, made the Ledbetter decision all the more appalling, because it was a smack in the face to everything she had worked for in her legal lifetime…walking us backward in one fell swoop.
Still pisses me off to think about it, frankly. (My poor husband had to listen to me gripe about it all over again last night, poor fella.)
I suppose it’s too late for Lilly Ledbetter, even if the legislation passes.
Deborah — I wasn’t able to find out as much about the civil rights legislation, just because it was so newly introduced by Sen. Kennedy and Rep. Lewis. If you know more details than I’ve been able to provide, I’d love to hear them.
Christy - you are so right. The majority decision reflects a basic misunderstanding of the workplace. Most people don’t start there job asking what other people make and sue within the first six month. And even, if they found a disparity in wages, it doesn’t mean necessarily tht discrimination is at work. But if you are being discriminated against and don’t file that claim, you have lost out on your fair wages for the REST OF YOUR CAREER with that employer.
Being a civil rights attorney at the ACLU, Justice Ginsburg is certainly one of my heros. I understand that the majority opinion was so upsetting to her that she read her dissent from the bench. I understand she has only done that one time before in all her time on the bench.
her case was such an injustice, too bad it can’t be made right.
Also, I meant to mention in the post, but the comparisons on the testimony here from John Roberts and Sam Alito — saying over and over again how important precedent and stare decisis is on these issues during their confirmation hearings…and then to read the decisions in these cases. It isn’t as though folks who read their prior opinions on these issues shouldn’t have expected it, frankly, but it is still ought to be an enormous wake-up call to everyone who was wagging a comity finger at those of us who were crying foul before the confirmation votes.
They’ve certainly stayed true to ideology, regardless of the individual fact patterns of the cases or the laws as they are plainly written, I’ll give them that.
In reply to eCAHNnomics at 28 — Yes, I am sad to say it will be too late for Lilly.
For those interested in the Ledbetter case, Oyez provides recordings of the arguments and the opinion announcements for the case, along with documents and briefs and such filed.
Christy - You’ve hit on something important that will have impact beyond Ledbetter. Alito and Roberts certainly made the case that they believe is stare decisis and precedent, but so far in civil rights cases, that doesn’t appear to be the case. But what is worse is that they do not acknowledge their reversal of prior SC decisions — that was the case in Ledbetter and Carhart (the abortion decision). It’s not a very intellectually honest approach.
Also, here’s the ACLU’s amicus brief on Ledbetter.
Thanks, Rachel — I meant to link that up above for everyone.
The Lilly Ledbetter case is a model for every single decision the Roberts Court will make on discrimination, civil rights, and every business matter. Is the remedy going to have to be the same in every case, i.e., Congress will pass a new law, overturning the SCOTUS decision, then it will have to be litigated back up to SCOTUS, which will overturn the new law on the basis of the precidence of their prior SCOTUS decision (stare decisis applies only to decisions of the Roberts court, dontcha know), which makes Congress’s new law wrong. Somehow I’m not too comforted by that possibility.
Did you expect intellectual honesty? Would have portrayed little knowledge of the enemy.
One of the things that I hope folks take away from this and other posts in this series is how so many things in their lives are affected by the court system and how their political involvement can also have an impact on the make-up and decisions of the courts. It’s a two-way street. And like so many things in our political system, if we do not like the direction that decisions are taking, we have to be certain to elect people who will reflect the values — including respect for the rule of law and the constitution — we deem to be important.
Roberts and Alito are young — in their 50s — and we will be living their political philosophies writ into opinions for years and years to come. To balance that out again, we must ensure that the next President who is making appointments to the courts does so with a more balanced and mainstream political philosophy than the extreme right one of George Bush.
I think pretty much everyone who reads here regularly can agree on that.
my bold
This Presidential election is about the Supreme Court, I still can’t believe the last one wasn’t
yep
Gee. Intellectually dishonest Republicans! Whoever would have thought such a thing were possible? /s
One of the big hurdles to overcome at the moment with the legislation is that George Bush is highly unlikely to sign it into law. Which means that any fix to this issue will likely wait until the next President is in office…making our choice even more important as we vote.
Patently dishonest during their confirmations. Intellectually dishonest in their decisions. There’s that consistency thing again.
The legislative branch has been effectively neutered. Now the same disease responsible has infected the Supreme Court. And they have lifetime appointments.
This does not bode well.
If I’m understanding Kennedy’s Act correctly, an employee is only able to file a lawsuit within 180 days of discovering they have been discrimminated against?
I guess I’m questioning why they are able to put such a short time limit on that? That’s only six months after discovery, when injury cases allow for two years’ past discovery.
And, as others have pointed out, an employee has a very hard time getting pay information from employers. I have personally worked for employers who prohibited employees from talking about their wages. It was a self-serving rule, as the employer was trying to hide pay disparity.
In response to Christy 29 — If folks are looking for more material on Ledbetter, we have our Senate letter in support of it on our website (Rachel can you post?) and many of our coalition partners, like the National Women’s Law Center and the National Partnership for Women and Families, have produced good material that may be on their websites. But I also want to point out that this decision impacts gender, race, national origin, religion, age, and disability. Sadly, I believe the Ledbetter decision signals the Supreme Court’s willingness to undercut wage protections. The decision renders Title VII basically useless as a tool for stopping pay discrimination. This is not what Congress intended when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Christy, Deborah!!!
Absolutely incredibly important post!
Thank you, both.
The Ledbetter case should find consonance will all who work for a paycheck,
as well as any human being with a conscience. There should be universal outrage.
Appreciate your information as I’ve been appalled ever since I first heard of the Kafkaesque ‘reasoning’ being touted as ‘considered’ jurisprudence that this ‘case’ so compellingly demonstrates.
Me, neither, Elliott. There are so many issues at stake all at once this time around, that desperately need real leadership and a great deal of care and thought to resolve them — the courts, infrastructure…you name it.
No worries, Christy. It’s why they pay me the big bucks. ;)
Also, here’s our letter to the Hill and the need for this legislation (on H.R. 2831, specifically).
I got to see Lilly Ledbetter testify at last week’s Senate hearing on the bill and I gotta tell you - she was an amazing woman. She worked at the Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Alabama for almost twenty years. She described putting up with years of sexual harrassment, bullying from her male peers, and (unbeknownst to her) pay descrimination. Because “it was a good job” and she had two girls in college. Long story short, she’s one tough broad and it just kills me to think that she will never really see justice in her particular case.
Is there really any good reason that complaints must be made w/in 180 days? Now I realize that the supposed reason is that companies have early notice of problems, and that those problems can then be, in good faith, worked out on an administrative level, without the involvement of federal courts.
As to the *supposed* reason for the requirement of notice w/in 180 days, I call bullshit. It presupposes that a company and its workers have interests in common, while the mere fact that there *is* a dispute, notice given whenever, is evidence that they do not.
I lost an age discrimination case, back in the late ’80’s (while I was still in law school -sssshhhhhh) on a Second Motion for Summary Judgment which went like this - “OK, for purposes of the Motion, we’ll admit that we didn’t hire Mr. R. because of his age. But *since then*, we found something on his employment application that wasn’t true. That having been found, we could have fired him immediately, and correspondingly cannot be found liable for having discriminated against him, admittedly, because of his age.”
They won that Second Motion for SJ - and to this day I’m pissed. The 180 day notice requirement pre-supposes a logical fallacy - that being that the companies have anything other than a combative relationship with employees, and it should be not adjusted, but eliminated. A lengthening of the Limitations period during which these cases can go straight into Fed Court, where the belong - now that I could get behind….
The veto is W’s only way to remain relevant in his last year. You should expect him to veto just about everything the D Congress passes. I sent you another example in an email.
Yes. I agree with that. I’m still upset with Edwards bowing out of the race, but you can bet that I will vote for whomever the Dem is in November, given the weight of this Presidency has on the Supreme Court.
It doesn’t have to be a civil litigation filing. In Ledbetter’s case, she filed her complaint to the EEOC within 180 days of discovery of her treatment, which closed the loop on the timeframe for statute of limitations…except that the Roberts Court then reinterpreted what had been longstanding precedent on that. The legislation takes the filing timing back to where it was before the Ledbetter decision, as I understand it.
Actually, it is not within 180 days of discovery of the discrimination. It is within 180 within of the discrimination itself — whether you know it or not. So if you are given a discriminatory wage when you start your job and find out about it 181 days later, your claim is untimely and the employer can benefit from that discrimination for the rest of your career without penalty.
It’s the court appointments, it’s the signing statements and it’s the up is down, inside out
abuse of the DOJ Civil Rights DivisionUnfortunately, I think you are correct that the Petulant Son will be getting attention in the only way left to him this last year. The veto pen is going to get quite a cranky little workout, I’m afraid. Whether it is warranted or not.
NO! it isn’t
Too bad there’s not a “speaker’s circuit” for brave people like her. Only for bus & govt “leaders,” of whatever questionable attributes, but nothing for workers.
Amen. To do otherwise is insane.
That is such a great idea…if only there were a union group who could put something like that together, it would go hand in hand with so much of their educational outreach. (She says, hinting to any union rep readers in the audience.)
In another life I was paymaster for a hotel, that information is at the employer’s fingertips.
Thank you for your attention and hard work to this important issue. I for one believe Sen. Clinton has a harder row to hoe due to gender discrimination than does Sen. Obama for #####################. Others may disagree. MHOO.
The 180 days reinterpretation is a big deal. It goes to enabling a discovery of a pattern of behavior as well as an individual case. My former employer regularly reorganized (for several reasons) but one was to lay off, demote or deadend anyone who became pregnant while employed there. Hey, it’s OK to have a family, just don’t do it on their dime. Very very difficult to prove. And professional women find it extremely humiliating to admit discrimination.
So thank you for soldiering on for my daughters’ sake.
Lilly is really amazing. I’ve gotten to spend some time with her and she is very brave, very compelling. In the early 90s, I got to spend some time with Anita Hill. And they are very different women - but so courageous to stand up in an egregious employment situation - when it was not easy to do.
Deb mentioned a few of our coalition members -
The National Women’s Law Center has a pledge and other materials here.
And here is the National Partnership’s letter to the Hill, as well as their fact sheet.
In an earlier life, I helped my project manager do accounting activities. When I’d receive the bi-monthly accounting reports just after a salary adjustment period, I’d figure out folks new salaries then go tell him. I usually had it down within a couple of dollars on the per annum side.
I absolutely agree. Especially since she continues to speak out and fight on behalf of this issue and this legislation, all on her own dime.
I must brag about my headline on Page 6 of NYPost, when I accused my Wall St. employer of gender discrimination:
Of course, I got taken to the woodshed the next day.
That was all probably around the late 90s.
So, let me clarify on the 180 day problem — Simply put, according to the 5-4 decision, the majority held that the Ms. Ledbetter didn’t have a valid claim of wage discrimination because she had not filed her complaint within 180 days of Goodyear’s initial discriminatory pay decision. This holding is true regardless of when an employee first discovers the discrimination, and despite the fact that each subsequent paycheck carries forward and is tainted with intentionally discriminatory pay decisions made years before by an employer. The problem was that in Ms. Ledbetter’s case, pay disparities occurred in small increments building up slowly, but steadily. And she didn’t know about the discrimination under YEARS after the first discriminatory decision. The bill would reinstate the “paycheck accrual” rule - which says you have 180 from your last tainted paycheck to bring a claim. Much for reasonable, much more in keeping with our civil rights protections. And it had been the law for decades.
Also, as a side note Bush has already said he would veto this bill, but we still want a good vote in the Senate. We will continue pushing until this is fixed.
Yes, it’s incredible that this stuff is STILL going on these days…
I had filled out an application that an employer asked if I was married, if I had children, and then went on to make the statement: “If I (employee) quit before the two-week pay period is up, I hereby forefit the pay for the entire two weeks.” and the prospective employee was supposed to sign it!!
In this economy, people are finding it hard to get a job that pays a decent wage to actually live on…I can see abuses such as the above becoming more common–especially with the Supreme Court not backing employees’ rights.
You know, when I was still a prosecutor, I can remember an incident when I was trying a particular murder case. I had a victim’s family thank me for doing my job — and I sort of brushed it off with the usual “that’s what I do to earn my pay” you’re welcome when the matriach of the family stopped me with a hand to my arm. The victim in the case had been a young black man, and the defendant who had killed him was white. They were thanking me for not pulling my punches but prosecuting the case fully instead of just cutting a deal for the white kid (since I’m also white) — where they had come from, that is what would have happened, and they were really grateful that we were taking the case seriously and prosecuting it fully.
It had never occurred to me not to do my job as fully on that case as on any other. But the fact that they had expected it and were pleasantly surprised when we took their relative’s murder seriously was a real eye opener for me. That they even had to think about that was sad enough at a time when they had lost someone dear to them in the way this young man was killed.
I’m doing my best to pay attention to the videos. But since AfJ/ACLU are concerned about both age and disability, I’d like (respectfully) to let them know that for an older person with hearing aids in both ears and difficulty at times separating speech from music, it is extremely difficult to follow your video because so much of the video pairs speech and music together.
Thanks for taking this into consideration the next time you make a video. We older and/or hearing impaired individuals will be grateful… and better informed.
arrgh…forfeit
Just a quick drive-by:
I enjoyed the videos from last months post: Quiet Revolution. The compare and contrast of confirmation/action segments on Alito and Roberts came to mind while watching the recent Mukasey hearing.
I look forward to reading the comments and viewing the videos of this post later.
Thanks again for all the hard work!
Holy cow, that is a horrid attempt to hoodwink someone who might not fully read the contract. Good lord…
just wow.
So we have to roll up our sleeves and get justice for ALL.
This series is just remarkable, Christy, and helps us to be part of the solution.
IANAL, so I’ll have to ask…are there any comparable limitations on an individual’s right to sue another individual, versus suing a corporation?
Hopefully this isn’t a dumb question.
Thanks for that story. I too have been so surprised over the years that gay and lesbian individuals feared that I, a mental health professional, might discriminate and not accord them the very same assistance I would accord anyone. I wasn’t just surprised at this. I was honestly shocked - to think that people would study for this profession if they were prejudiced against anyone.
I’m surprised how often on TV, no attention is paid to people with disabilities. My computer is situated so I sit with my back to the TV. I have discovered that there are some ads, including ads for politicians, that have no taking, only music. I’m mimicking a blind person by the way I sit. Now why would anyone make a TV ad that has no appeal to a blind person? Do they think visually impaired people never listen to TV?
I’m sorry to see you’re having difficulties with the video. That piece is actually from AfJ, not us, but we’ll certainly keep your concerns in mind as we produce our own materials.
It doesn’t matter if you read the contract or not. The employer has all the power & won’t hire you unless you sign it.
Is there a dumb question?
The piece was produced by the folks at Alliance for Justice, and I’ll be sure to pass that along to them as they put together future segments for this series and beyond. Thanks!
I’m not certain that’s an enforceable clause — at least, I’m not certain it would be enforceable here anyway. Each jurisdiction has its own rules on that in terms of state law. But that one pretty much says “I’m not paying you for work you actually do for me” which is a big ole no-no.
IIRC, Clinton was the only Dem prez (in 1992) to have made a SCOTUS appt. in 44 years… (Is this correct, Christy? I could check, but I’m all tied up in multitasking at the moment..*g*)
My therapist was prejudiced against people who weren’t interesting (she thought I was). I quit right after I discovered that.
You’re welcome. I in no way am critical of the organization or the video or your series here.
It was just a fyi post.
Thanks to all to understand.
Thank you, Elliot.
As though you were her entertainment? Now that is bizarre as a therapy strategy, I have to say. *g*
Christy, thank you so much for arranging this chat. And thank you so much for all the grea