[We are pleased to welcome Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton to FDL to discuss the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Please stay on topic and be polite. Any off-topic discussions should be taken to the prior thread. Thanks! -- CHS]
In the video at left, provided by Alliance for Justice, you can hear Lilly Ledbetter tell you in her own words about the gender pay discrimination she discovered had been going on for 19 years of her employment -- and only by an anonymous note. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said from the bench in her blistering oral dissent to the majority's decision in the Ledbetter case:
In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.
Title VII was meant to govern real-world employment practices, and that world is what the court today ignores.
Justice Ginsburg founded the women's rights project at the ACLU, and for years was the champion of all women seeking respect, parity and equal opportunities in the workplace and beyond. Her words were borne out of the real world experience that both she and Justice O'Connor had to endure out of law school -- being offered secretarial positions or being rejected outright for jobs because they were women.
Any woman who has had to fight her way into a position, or prove herself worthy of even being considered as comparable to her male counterparts -- because of fears that she might have children, or a family to care for, or "female issues" or whatever other excuse is used to keep her behind even when she was overqualified for the job -- any woman who has walked in those shoes can tell you how difficult it can be to rise above in-grown discriminatory attitudes and practices.
It isn't as though employers announce outright that they are treating one class of employees differently from others -- they don't exactly say "the folks with a uterus are making less money for the same exact job again this year," now do they? And yet, Lilly Ledbetter found out that's what had been happening to her.
Thankfully, in the wake of the Ledbetter decision, the House of Representatives acted swiftly to rectify the sweeping dismissal of long-term precedent that the Roberts' Court overturned in its majority decision. The Senate takes up that legislation this week, and supporters of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act could use your help. For starters, as the ACLU points out:
...The Ledbetter decision not only reversed years of employment law, it also ignored the realities of a workplace. Often employees don’t know what their co-workers are paid; an expectation that they learn that information within the first 180 days of a pay decision is unreasonable. Unless Congress intervenes, companies will be able to discriminate for years and unjustly profit from paying women, minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities less, as long as it keeps the discrimination secret for a few months.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed "The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" (H.R. 2831) to correct this problem, and to ensure employers do not profit from years of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability, simply because their employees were unaware of the discrimination for 180 days. The bill clarified this wage discrimination is not a one-time occurrence, but rather, that each discriminatory paycheck an employer issues represents an ongoing violation of the law.
This is how the law had been interpreted for years, until the Roberts' Court overruled that interpretation precedent in one fell swoop. As AFJ's fact sheet on the Ledbetter case states, since the decision last year, the case has been cited in 207 federal cases nationwide -- there is a reason that swift action on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is essential to protect works against discriminatory pay practices.
We're asking that you contact your Senators and tell them to support the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 2831). The ACLU has set up an easy contact tool to e-mail your Senators, as has the National Women's Law Center. Phone numbers for Senators can be found here.
One of the most vocal proponents of the legislation has been Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, who joins us at FDL today to talk about the legislation, why it is important for all of us -- and what you can do to help. And with that, I welcome Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, and open the floor for discussion and your questions.
(For those who want additional information, Echidne has a great three-part series on the gender gap and pay discrimination. Ann at Feministing has blogged on this as well.)
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight

Support this site!
Keep up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

RSS/XML Feed
Christy and Eleanor!
That was rude. Christy and Rep. Holmes!
Edit! Rep. Holmes Norton. I’ll stop now. Thanks for coming!
Good Morning Rep. Holmes Norton,
what a honor and a pleasure to have you visit the Lake!
Thanks you! Christy.
Welcome to firedoglake! It’s a privilege to have you here.
Per barbara, Rep. Holmes Norton, a great honor to have you here at FireDogLake.
Thanks so much for taking the time to do this. Do you have any idea on what the prospects for passage might be?
Morning everyone! Welcome to the Congresswoman — your work on this issue is very much appreciated.
Folks, the YouTube has some interview footage with Lilly Ledbetter talking about her case, and it is well worth a watch for everyone.
Good morning, Rep. Norton, it’s great that you decided to participate in this.
Rep Norton — Love you on “To the Contrary”!! Thanks for doing this today.
Rep. Holmes Norton- thank you for joining us. It’s an honor.
Justice Ginsburg’s dissent was so moving in this case- how do we make sure judges understand how laws effect real people? It seems that Chief Justice Roberts had no concept of what its like in a real workplace.
The prospects for passage in the Senate are fairly good - but we still need to push on this as much as we can. The question on whether the Bush Administration will sign or veto it, though, is a whole other issue, given their record on labor rights issues…
The day before equal pay day, April 22nd, the day that commemorates the additional time beyond the calendar year women need to work in order to make wages equal to wages men earned during the last calendar year is a good time for us to have this discussion of the Equal Pay Act, which it was my great honor to administer as chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under President Carter, and especially to discuss the Ledbetter bill to restore the basic intent of the Equal Pay Act. I am pleased to be with you.
Thank you for coming here to address this issue. I have experienced wage discrimination pretty much most of my working life…. first working in a predominantly female profession - Nursing and now as a software engineer… more so. Found out that I was getting paid approx $15K less than my male counterpoint plus the glass ceiling is not glass as there is no breaking through if you are a woman.
Thank you for being here, Rep. Holmes Norton.
This is one of the most egregious rulings against precedent in recent times. How is this legislation faring? I hope it will not have significant opposition. Anyone who votes against it would be foolish, it seems to me.
Has the White House has commented on this legislation at all?
Rep. Norton, thanks so much for being here. I know that you headed the EEOC under President Carter–have you seen a change in the way federal courts are treating employment discrimination claims since that time?
Hi Eleanor,
There’s no reason for you to remember me, but my first quasi-political action was to participate in the Socialist Discussion Club you chaired at Antioch, where we discussed Anti-Duhring. Steve Gould and Joni Rabinowitz invited me. After that it was the sit-ins. Us old grads are very proud to have been in school with you, and are still giving the fight for social justice our best shot.
Rep. Norton–you did so much excellent work in helping shepherd this through the House. It’s hard to believe there was opposition to it, but I was wondering what that talking points/reasons for voting against it were cited/what kind of arguments the legislation might face in the Senate.
Thank you so much for being here today. How difficult has it been — given all of your past work on these issues — to watch what has happened with the DOJ enforcement (or lack thereof), the EEOC enforcement (or lack thereof) and the various other segments of the Bush Administration and the judicial appointments rolling back so much of the labor, employment and civil rights work the last few years?
Rep. Holmes Norton, thanks for being here to discuss this! How do you respond to the criticism that this legislation will create an undue burden for employers should they need to defend themselves against an initial discriminatory salary decision, which could have happened decades ago? How can employers be expected to track down the documentation or witnesses to argue twenty or thirty years later that the initial salary decision was legitimate? Just curious, since these are the arguments I have heard from the opposition…
Congresswoman, as a former chair of the EEOC, I was wondering what your thoughts are that another EEOC director (Justice Thomas) sided with the majority to all but cripple the Equal Pay Act?
Your question on the Supreme Court is of great importance because the Supreme Court set the Equal Pay Act back by ignoring the common sense interpretation of the Act - that each unequal pay check received by a woman is a discriminatory act, if she can demonstrate that under the EPA. That is how the Act had been interpreted uniformly by the EEOC when I chaired the Agency, and it’s how even the Supreme Court had interpreted the Act. We have not paid nearly the attention to the Court as Republicans and others who have opposed their decisions have. Consequently, we have two new justices that essentially come out of the last presidential election where George Bush and now every Republican running indicated that they would appoint judges in the Scalia mold to do exactly what the Court did in the Ledbetter case. We had fair warning since Nixon, actually, that conservatives know they can’t make permanent change, but the Court can make near permanent change. It may already be too late, but the Ledbetter decision was a 5-4 decision, which says to me that we are still hanging on, but there is no question that this is our last chance to save the case law we have depended upon for progress for women, people of color, and working people. The Brennan Center for Justice asked me to write a comment about the next president and the Supreme Court. It appears in a paragraph I wrote at www.brennancenter.org/content/pages/fixing_justice
Representative Holmes Norton, thank you so much for making yourself available on FDL. I am one of your constituents (I live on the Hill) and I work at Trinity U in Brookland. Our students (all women) experience increasing difficulties finding meaningful work that pays adequately upon graduation. In fact, research shows that only 26 percent of Hispanic women and 30 percent of African American women in the DC region have college degrees. In 2005, the income gap between a female DC high school graduate and a female DC college graduate was more than $29,000!! What do you think the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision will mean in reality to the women of DC?
That’s a red herring argument from opponents. The statue of limitations under this would toll only where there is a discriminatory paycheck within the 180 day period. If the discriminatory action occurred outside the statute of limitations — and was corrected and not repeated in subsequent pay periods — then there would be no cause of action.
This addresses long-term discriminatory practices, such as what Ms. Ledbetter dealt with — years of discrimination wherein she was paid less than her male counterparts for doing the same job. It’s a straw man argument coming from people who are trying to argue against a provision that does not exist in this law in order to make it seem untenable for employers — but it is simply not what the law says, nor what it is intended to do.
It’s a false argument — and anyone making it is doing so to mislead about what the legislation actually says. It is meant to counter long-term, hidden discriminatory workplace practices, not individual mistakes that are long-since past and corrected.
Sounds like you may have a Ledbetter case of your own, and I hope that you will at least contact Alliance for Justice, who can put you in contact with one of the women’s organizations which, for no cost, can indicate whether it may be worth pursuing this case rather than sitting on unequal pay. You are a software engineer, just the kind of job women were told they could equalize their pay by entering. We’re told that unequal pay exclusively comes becomes women are in primarily women’s occupations, yet women in male occupations with the same education and time on the job experience the same discrimination, especially in your hi-tech field. It’s a field where we need every woman and man who has taken the trouble and gone through the hard work to train themselves.
President Bush has issued a vet threat.
Why in the world would the president threaten to veto this legislation? Is he so beholden to businesses that he doesn’t even feel the need to pretend to care about equal rights/protections?
So the red herring/straw men will be brought forward as the means by which to vote against this, and they will be used to defend those who vote against it. What other similar rh/sm arguments will we see?
One of the things that I found most poignant about the Ledbetter case was how much work Justice Ginsburg had done on these issues when she worked for the women’s rights project with the ACLU — and how little that apparently was discussed in terms of the arguments among the justices on the Court. When we had Jan Crawford Greenberg on to discuss her Supreme Conflict, this was one of the cases that she discussed in depth in the book — and I found the background on the arguments in this case fascinating.
The AFJ study on how many times Ledbetter has already been cited was an eye-opener — 270 cases and counting just since the decision came down last year.
Rep Holmes Norton thank you so much for your work on this issue. The Supreme Court took the most tortured reading of the limitations period I can imagine in reaching their decision in the Ledbetter case. It simply defied logic
Thank heavens you are setting about restoring some sensibleness. Brava
Congresswoman, I’m curious as to whether there are particular Senators who have been identified as needing any extra nudge on this legislation for the vote coming up on Wednesday? We have readers from all over the country, so if there are Senators who need extra calls, I’m sure we can find some readers to make them. Any wavering folks who could use the contact?
I find the 180 days limit in Ledbetter a real sore point. In the same term, the Court resurrected a political advertising case Wisconsin Right to Life that had been moot for a couple of years. It just showed to me that the Court will do what the Court feels like doing. If it wants to be a stickler about timeframes in one case, it will. If it wants to take a much more expansive view of them in another, then it will. The myth is that the Court acts with consistency and with regard to the law. Most of the time it does neither.
The New York Times has a great blog entry about this legislation today:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.....-pay-bill/
Your question about the personal pain of seeing enforcement collapse goes straight to my gut and my heart as a women who enforced the equal employment laws and saw the difference enforcement makes. Otherwise, they’re paper laws. The answer to your question reminds me of my last response on the Supreme Court. If women care about equal pay, and it is a major issue for families according to all the polls, then if, as I believe, the Senate passes the Ledbetter bill tomorrow (as I believe the House did in July), the job of renewing the Equal Pay Act only begins then. The Soviet Union and most authoritarian, and even totalitarian countries, can point to paper laws on subjects like this of which we would all approve. Enforcement is the whole ball game. Enforcement has collapsed in every aspect of equality law during Bush’s eight years. That includes not reporting on data on women and minorities routinely kept for decades by Republican and Democratic administrations, and tragically, it means that the Justice Department, the EEOC, the Labor Department, and the Office of Personnel Management and other federal agencies have either paid no attention or have affirmatively harmed the progress that had tended to take place from administration to administration. When I chaired the EEOC, I never expected to sit as a Member of Congress. Who knew?! The present state of affairs increases my frustrations, but it has allowed me to work in the legislative branch as I did in the executive branch. My regret is that I’ve had to work on the Ledbetter case to essentially re-enact an essential provision of the Equal Pay Act that had always been the law. As important as the passage of the Ledbetter bill is tomorrow, I hope we will not forget that the only way to assure it means anything is to go to the polls during the remaining primaries and in November to elect a president with a track record on these issues. They need to be a more prominent part of the Democratic and Republican campaigns coming up in November in any case.
For those interested in further information on this, Sen. Kennedy issued a report recently on the effects of the recession on women in the economy, and it isn’t pretty:
* In the past year, the unemployment rate among adult women workers has gone up more rapidly than for men—rising from 3.8% in March 2007 to 4.6% in March 2008, an increase of 20%, compared with a 17% increase among adult men.
* The downturn has caused women’s wages to fall and this decline is significantly larger than what men have suffered. In 2007, the real median wage for adult women workers dropped 3%; wages for adult male workers dropped by.5% over the same period. Women’s wages are also more volatile than men’s wages, and they face a much higher risk of seeing large drops in income than men do.
* Women are also disproportionately at risk in the current foreclosure crisis, since women are 32% more likely than men to have subprime mortgages.
* Existing pay disparities for women exacerbate the economic strain on women and on households run by women, since women earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men
* Women have significantly fewer savings to fall back on in a time of economic hardship. Non-married women have a net worth 48% lower than non-married men, and women are less likely than men to participate in employer-sponsored retirement savings programs.
How is this going to help out with enforcement mechanisms? It seems like plaintiffs have a harder time getting their day in court/ Is the Department of Labor of any help, or is there lack of enforcement (or even hinderence) in Bush’s Department?
This really goes to the heart of so many issues we have had with Bush Administration policies:
Thanks you for stating it so succinctly. It is beyond frustrating that the very departments we have entrusted to look out for the public interest have either been decimated or disallowed from following through on their stated mission, time and time again. Beyond frustrating.
What can be done to rectify this? What can we do to help get that underway?
Rep. Holmes Norton, I have spoken with many people who don’t realize that Congress does have the ability to “correct” some of the Supreme Court’s bad decisions by clarifying laws the Court has misinterpreted. Do you find this attitude among members of Congress or any unwillingness to contradict decisions of the Court?
I know that as of Friday the following Senators were still wavering on the legislation:
Senator Coleman (Minnesota)
Senator Pryor (Arkansas)
Senator Lincoln (Arkansas)
Senator Landrieu (Louisiana)
Senator Collins (Maine)
Senator Baucus (Montana)
Senator Conrad (North Dakota)
Senator Voinovich (Ohio)
Senator Smith (Oregon)
Senator Hagel (Nebraska)
I was just going to ask if an act of Congress could get Ledbetter justice.
Two words: Elaine Chao.
For those wondering, that means: not really helpful, no.
Thanks much — that’s very useful.
Thank you especially for that question, because of course if it were true that employers had to defend against practices decades or years ago, then that would be unfair, and I think a violation of due process. It would certainly violate the EEOC statute of limitations, which is 180 days. The bill does no more than restate the law, that a woman has 180 days to sue from the last paycheck she recognized as providing her unequal pay. The Court held, however, that the statute of limitations began to run from the date the employer began to pay her unequally. As Justice Ginsburg indicated, a woman has no way of knowing when the employer made the decision to give her unequal pay. Her knowledge to sue can only be triggered by when she knew or believed she had received unequal pay. She may have sat on her rights for years, even decades, as Lilly Ledbetter did, but she suffers the consequences of not knowing what, of course, the employer would never tell her. Moreover, among the most secretive pieces of information people have are their salaries, and men don’t go around sharing their salaries with women in order to help women show that the men are being paid more than the women. Indeed the Paycheck Fairness Act, HR 1338, that I have cosponsored, has a section that prohibits retaliation against employees who have shared salary information with employees because many workers fear such retaliation or are warned not to share their salaries. In this country, we have a statute of limitations on every law except homicide, and especially on the civil side. Remember, the burden is entirely on the woman to show she has been paid unequally, but the information to show that is withheld from her until she learns that the check she is receiving is unequal. In the case of Lilly Ledbetter, she learned about her unequal pay from a tip and sued. Remember, the issue in the case turned not on whether she was paid unequally, but on whether she should have sued at a time when she could not have known that she was being paid unequally. Thank you for allowing me to do what I can to clear up that important issue.
I agree- perception is a problem here- as is the general tendency of Congress to not step up and fulfill its duty to be an equal branch of government. This administration has been unrelenting in its push to expand executive power- but Congress definitely deserves blame for not pushing back hard enough and for not taking the time to let the public know that it is supposed to play an equal role and serve as a check on both the executive AND the judicial branch.
Rep. Norton- why have your colleagues been so reluctant to push back? It would seem fighting for equal pay and fair interpretations of the laws they pass would be enough motivation to do something.
I have enjoyed being with you, but my staff tells me there is urgent business awaiting me here in the House. I hope all of you will email or call your Senators to urge them to pass the Ledbetter bill tomorrow. That would be the best way to commemorate Equal Pay Day. The bill only puts us back to where we were in 1963. Particularly during this election year, Republican and Democratic Senators need to know that their vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will not go unnoticed. I’ve appreciated how many of you have chatted and regret that I could not respond to more of your excellent questions. Thank you.
I think we can all call these Senators, even if they are not “representing” us. This is federal legislation and a NO vote on this deprives me as much as it deprives anyone anywhere.
Thank you for coming today, great discussion!
Thanks so much for taking the time to do this, Rep. Norton! Your comments were extremely insightful and interesting. Thanks for all you do.
Thank you so much for your time Rep. Norton.
Thank you Rep. Norton- both for being here today and for your leadership on this issue. Good luck fighting the good fight!
One of the groups that has been pushing this false canard most vociferously has been the American Enterprise Institute. Shameful…because they have been pushing it via surrogates around the internet and on editorial pages as well.
Also, there is a two-year limit on backpay damages in Title VII, so employers aren’t exposed to “unlimited liability.” Since the employee has the burden of proving discrimination and backpay is limited to two years regardless of when you file the claim, there is no incentive for an employee to wait around for years to file a claim.
It is that sort of Catch 22 circular reasoning, totally devoid of logic, that shows how frivolous and results driven this SCOTUS decision was. It’s just meddenling. Talk abut activist judges and legislating from the bench!
It highlaghts, once again, that this upcomming election is critical to preserving the integrity og the Supreme Court.
Thank you for the very helpful answer. I am always working to build an airtight case for use in trying to convince others that this legislation is both necessary and viable.
Thank you so much for being with us today and for your thorough answers — much appreciated! As is your great work on this legislation. Thanks so much!
Funny how that never comes up as a factual bit of information from critics of the legislation, isn’t it? *g* One might think they were deliberately leaving out that bit in order to falsely strengthen their own argument…
Also, for more information on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Drum Major Institute has some fantastic information and a good bill summary available here.
Thank you Congresswoman,
and thank you Christy
to the phones!
I wanted to wait until the dialog with Rep. Holmes Norton had ended to make this comment because it’s a more macro view of the topic.
I work with kids, and a very disturbing trend I see among teenage girls and women is a sort of backlide into females being submissive to males. I hear girls and young women often insist they are not “feminists” (that word has successfully be framed as a negative for that age group), and I see a general ignorance and apathy toward what women had to go through to makes strides for themselves.
I can’t help but think this is leading to a reversal of these things, which can only help conservative legislators roll back major legislation (Roe? Equal pay? Etc.). It’s one of those slippery slope things, I fear.
Thanks Elliott — to that end, if folks get responses from their Senators on how they are going to vote on the bill, please let us know in this thread. That way, if someone is still wavering, we can put out a request for more calls and contacts.
Thanks much!
I don’t know if it is backsliding as much as the rather depressing recognition that after fifty years of work, women are still fighting the same fights…and losing.
My guess, perhaps wrongly, is that a generation has gone by and any gains made have been taken for granted and older women are not educating young women on how tenuous those gains are, how hard won, and how easily lost.
I think that’s true. I think, also, the sad fact is that the women’s vote has been taken for granted far too much by folks on the Dem side — and thus our issues have backslid in importance as well. If it isn’t a priority at the top of the Beltway, then it slides as a priority on down the line — including in educational settings. And a large part of that has been a decreased emphasis on these issues throughout the Bush Administration as well, because it hasn’t been a regulatory priority, either.
I think for youngsters who grew up with their mothers, aunts, etc. in the workforce, it was just part and parcel of the landscape. And I also think that many of them had certain feelings about being taken to childcare and so on. Because they were children, and have the self-centered emotions of children, they did not recognize why their mothers were in the workforce or really what benefits they received because they worked. What many of them felt was that they wished that their mothers were at home FOR THEM. I think they also saw that their mothers had to work outside the home…and inside as well, and…what did they “get” for that? I think this has led many young women to make the decision that a) if, after all the education and hard work, they will have to work two jobs and at the outside job, they will never, ever get as high as men will, and b) that their “success” in life will be attributable to being able to marry a man who has the earning capacity to support them, “just in case” — then, why go through (a) at all?
And to be clear, I am basing the “not a priority for Dems” comment on how difficult it was to get any interest in opposing Alito for womens’ issues problems we saw in his judicial history. It was painfully obvious that it wasn’t a priority for Senators to stand up on that issue just based on conversations — over and over again — that we tried to get going with various Senators and their staffs.
Christy, there are days when I find it very difficult to draw the line on the continuum between people like Alito(representing certain factions of the right wing and the GOP), and the FLDS.
There are days when I’m right there with you — and then I think about folks like Eleanor Holmes Norton and others just like her who have spent a lifetime fighting these battles and who haven’t given up yet. And I keep on going…
Christy - you and I between us have three daughters. My girls are much older than your Peanut, but even they do not understand what it is like to be asked in a job interview, “What does your husband do?” or “What form of birth control are you using,” as I was in the early 1970s, or what it is like to go through continual humiliation in terms of jobs being given to men who are younger, less educated, less experienced, etc. At the moment, however, I feel that we have degenerated into fighting to protect our daughters’ rights to controlling their own uteruses.
Damnit, Hugh! Now I have to clean coffee off my laptop . … again.
When we are down to fighting about whether medically necessary birth control has to be dispensed by pharmacists, I think we need to re-think how we are doing things. Absolutely agree with you there.
Here is a message I received from Feminist Majority today. If nothing else, call your senator. At the least add two others from (all if possible) from Imericks @40.
Thanks for this list. There’s also a national journal article here
http://www.nationaljournal.com.....8_9546.php
that lists, in addition to some of the folks you listed, these senators as potentially on the fence:
Nelson
Snowe
Specter
Dole
Thanks Gabriel — why is it that the list always ends up being the usual suspects: the Gang of 14, all the women on the GOP side, and those in tight races who can never seem to make up their minds on anything? I swear, some days it really does feel like we are trying to herd cats.
called senator voinavich’s office back this morning—to see if he had come off of the fence yet–
still on the fence, hasn’t released a statement on why…..i said put a checkmark by the ’not happy with that’ column.
morning of the vote and *crickets*…..