Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
The supreme court ruled 5-4 this week that you only have 180 days to file discrimination lawsuits. In the case they stated while the lady had been greivouly discriminated against for 30 years, she did not file after 180 days so no award was warranted. This means if you are paid less or treated differently, you have 6 months to find out document it and file a case.
In effect it tells corporations, hide your records for 6 months and you can discriminate all you want.
Post by billypilgrim on Jun 3, 2007 13:59:28 GMT -5
The Supreme Court didn't decide that you only get 180 days to file a Title VII discrimination claim. That requirement has been part of the statute since Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are some situations where the unlawful behavior continues over a period of time, like when someone is being sexually harassed. In those situations, the courts (including the Supreme Court) have said that the time to file doesn't begin running until the illegal behavior ends. But in this case, the court said that the employer hadn't done anything wrong in years and that the employee couldn't ignore the 180-day statute of limitations simply by saying she was still experiencing the effects of past discrimination. The court said that, if the law were otherwise, there would be a flood of litigation over decisions that happened years before and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.
Also, this decision is limited to a specific type of claim under a particular federal law. If the claim was that the employer systematically paid women less (as opposed to just this woman), different standards would apply. Also, many states (e.g. California) have state anti-discrimination laws that give you longer to file these types of claims.
Having said all that, I agree with Justice Ginsberg's dissent. And I'm very worried about how the Supreme Court Bush is shaping is going to effect us in the long term. I just wanted to clarify what the court decided.
The four dissenter (along with all the lower courts) said that an arbitrary 180 day rule in the statute does not forgive years of discrimination. Only these five judges said that the letter of the law overrode the intent.
The majority decision that this is to prevent overwhelming the court with cases has already been proven invalid as the past 43 year has seen no flood. This is cheap rationalization for a corporately biased decision. Everyone, including 4 Justices, knows it.
The woman filing worked 30 years and is still receiving retiement pension based on that income. She thought she was getting paid much less than the men but couldn't prove it until after retirement. When she could prove it, she promptly filed suit. (In fact the lower courts agreed that every pension check was another case of discrimination.)
This was indeed a case of individual discrimination (though discrimination none the less) but most discrimination cases are. It is MUCH harder to prove a discrimination against a group as it take a proportionally larger amount of proof which , of course , harder to get. (Imagine having to get every women's salary records, and every man's, or a large percentage thereof, instead of just your own and a few other cooperative co-workers.)
Last Edit: Jun 3, 2007 16:03:05 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
There's pay discrimination everywhere. But how often do you share your pay with your coworkers (which everyone tells you not to do). That's the only way you find out anything, and you're certainly not going to find out the information easily.
WTF do my reproductive organs have to do with getting a job done and getting paid for it?
I don't get the correlation, it's some mystical secret that the corporate world revolves around and for the life of me i'll never know why.
We treat mishaps like sinking ships and I know that I don't want to be out to drift Well I can see it in your eyes like I taste your lips and They both tell me that we're better than this
Post by chicagorooer on Jun 3, 2007 22:52:11 GMT -5
THE it's all BUSH's fault is soooo 2004.....I can't wait until BUSH is gone to see who the next victim is.....who can we blame every little thing that ever happens in the world on....stay tuned...
Post by AngrySunday on Jun 4, 2007 20:08:52 GMT -5
I should probably read the story before chiming in here and agree with Idioteque on the karma loss ("So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know..."). The gist of it as I understand it is...a woman worked for a company for 30 years and received less pay for the same job performed by men in the company. Courts are saying you have 180 days to file suit. I have to go with the courts on this one. I mean, 30 years before speaking out?? It's similar to a friend I used to have. She was married to a real SOB. Dude would whoop her a$$ but she would never leave him. Everyone did everything they could to show her the light but she wouldn't leave him. My point is, if you know you're getting punked and you aren't going to do anything about it, then it's your fault because you kept yourself in the situation.
I said I was done but I just want to clear something up. Twp points:
1 - all the Justices agreed that the woman had been discriminated against. I am not sure of the details of the case but this undisputed.
2 - You cannot file a case without proof of discrimination. No lawyer will take it and no judge will hear it. This is the gist of the dissenting opinion. To say"If you can hide the evidence of dicrimination for 6 months, you're home free" does not promote justice. Even if the defendant knew she was being screwed, she had to have proof before she could go to court. That can take years (or decades) to uncover. You have no rights to know others pay and in fact can be fired for telling others what you make.
Just wanted to clear that up. I'm REALLY done now.
Last Edit: Jun 4, 2007 20:26:35 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Post by AngrySunday on Jun 4, 2007 20:49:17 GMT -5
hehehe...yeah, my boss gets really cheesed when he hears of people talking about how much they make. I can safely say there is no discrimination at my workplace. Each position pays the same no matter who fills it.
The real solution to this is for Congress to remove the 180 day restriction. That's the sticking point for the 5 in the majority. Deciding otherwise would be (in their mind) contrary to the original intent.
The two women I just hired in my dept did not ask for more money or benefits.
But does that make it right?
I have been at my job a year, have done a lot of stuff and excelled, and yet I have not asked for a raise. I don't want to rock the boat or risk making my job uncomfortable. It's not that I'm not unconfident about my job or work or abilities, I just trust that my employer will do the right thing.
We treat mishaps like sinking ships and I know that I don't want to be out to drift Well I can see it in your eyes like I taste your lips and They both tell me that we're better than this
Whatever happened to getting paid what you are worth, regardless of whether you are male, female, or what? You do not deserve more money simply because you have been on a job for a certain amount of time. I have always told my kids that if you always do more than you are paid to do, you will always get more pay. It might not be at the job you are working, somebody might notice you and hire you away from where you are. A GOOD employee is hard to find. A whimpering, thats not fair, do no more than he/she has to employee is not worth spitting on if he/she was on fire. Life is about choices, the better choices you make will dictate where you end up.
that really sucks..
