Hawaii Personal Injury Blog - Civil Rights

High Court ruling makes proving age discrimination more difficult for employees.

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:01:11 GMT

The AP (6/19) reports that in a 5-4 decision announced Thursday, the Supreme Court "has made it harder to prove discrimination on the basis of age, ruling against an employee in his mid-50s who says he was demoted because of his age." The decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, said "a worker has to prove that age was the key factor in an employment decision, even if there is some evidence that age played a role. In some other discrimination lawsuits, the burden of proof shifts to the employer once a worker shows there is some reason to believe a decision was made for improper reasons." Thomas wrote: "We hold that a plaintiff bringing a disparate-treatment claim pursuant to the ADEA must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in the decision."

The Wall Street Journal (6/19, Anderson) reports that the vote "fell along ideological lines with conservatives in the majority and the court's liberal block registering an angry dissent," and calls the ruling "a win for businesses that increasingly face age-discrimination lawsuits. But the ruling also drew an angry reaction from a top Senate Democrat on legal issues, who compared the ruling's outcome to an earlier worker-discrimination ruling Congress overturned with new law." In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens "accused the majority of engaging 'in an unabashed display of judicial lawmaking' that he said overturns earlier employment-discrimination precedent and disregards 1991 changes in federal civil-rights laws." Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Alito joined Thomas' opinion, while Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter joined Stevens' dissent.

The Los Angeles Times (6/19, Savage) reports, "Because workers claiming such discrimination almost certainly will not be present while their employers discuss laying them off or demoting them, analysts said, it will be extremely difficult to obtain hard evidence that age was the key factor. "

The Washington Times (6/19, Lobianco) reports, "Democratic lawmakers seized on Justice Stevens' dissent as constitutional lawyers predicted Congress would make a law to lower the courts new bar for age discrimination cases." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), said: "This overreaching by a narrow majority of the court will have a detrimental effect on all Americans and their families. In these difficult economic times, American workers need to be protected from discrimination."

The National Law Journal (6/19, Coyle) reports, "The practical effect of Thursday's decision, said lawyers for employees and employers, is to eliminate so-called mixed-motives cases under the ADEA -- cases in which age was one of several factors motivating the employer's action. The decision 'reads mixed-motives cases out of the age act,' said Lawrence Lorber, a partner in the Washington office of Proskauer Rose. 'It's a good decision for employers unless Congress opts to deal with it.'"

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama signs equal-pay bill into law.

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:34:02 GMT

President Obama yesterday signed his first bill into law yesterday, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. USA Today (1/30, Jackson) reports the new law "makes it easier for workers to sue companies for pay discrimination and effectively reverses a 2007 Supreme Court decision that had given workers 180 days to file a lawsuit after the pay inequity allegedly first took place. ... In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4" that Lilly Ledbetter "had failed to file a discrimination suit against the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in a timely manner, citing a 180-day deadline. Earlier this month, the Democratic-run Congress voted largely along party lines to essentially reverse that ruling with a new law that extends the deadline every time a discriminatory pay check is issued."

You may have read earlier articles on this subject at Injury Board. Michael Phelan wrote an excellent review in "What is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?" and I also posted an earlier article "Labor bill may give workers tool to fight for higher pay." The importance of this case to women cannot be underestimated. Obama's action to quickly tell industry that discrimination against women in the workplace will not be tolerated is a bench mark of a return to fairness in America. For the 8 years of the Bush Adminsitration we have seen more abuses of civil rights since the 1950's and it is important to working Americans that someone is stepping up for people. Lilly Ledbetter is a good place to start. Hopefully the message will be received in corporate boardrooms and at all businesses in America with the sentiment that patriotism in this countrry means treating all people equally and fairly.

The Washington Times (1/30, Bellantoni) reports the President called the bill "an important step, but 'only the beginning,' adding he wants to close pay gaps between men and women." Ledbetter "promised to keep fighting for the Paycheck Fairness Act and to 'make sure that women have equal pay for equal work.'" That bill "passed the House last session." It "would expand lawsuit damages, make it harder for businesses to justify pay disparities between employees, and mandate studies and voluntary guidelines for employers on the issue."

Lawyers USA (1/30) reports, "President Barack Obama signed his first bill into law this morning, enacting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which will restart the statute of limitations for unequal pay employment bias claims with the issuance of every disproportionately low paycheck" which "overturns the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co." Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee said, "Today's signing ceremony proves that elections make a real difference for real people. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will clearly help to end unfair discrimination in the workplace."

The New York Times (1/30, Stolberg) reports, "President Obama signed his first bill into law on Thursday, approving equal-pay legislation that he said would 'send a clear message that making our economy work means making sure it works for everybody.'" NBC Nightly News (1/29, story 2, 2:40, Guthrie), ABC World News (1/29, story 3, 0:20, Gibson, the CBS Evening News (1/29, story 5, 0:55, Couric) also cover the story.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Labor bill may give workers tool to fight for higher pay.

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:09:48 GMT

The Wall Street Journal (1/24, Trottman, Maher) reported, "The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named for a woman whose attempt to sue Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. for pay discrimination was blocked because she waited too long, is poised to be one of the first bills signed by President Barack Obama" and "if enacted, it could present a new tool for workers to fight for higher pay, and an array of challenges for businesses." Michael Eastman, executive director of labor policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said, "It will be more difficult for the employer to deal with the questionable claim." He added, "Right now, employers can more easily use the statute-of-limitations defense."

Oklahoman: Labor laws are early gift for trial lawyers. The Oklahoman (1/26) editorializes, "Two pieces of legislation speeding toward President Barack Obama's desk - one probably well-intentioned, the other wrong-headed - show the eagerness of Democrats to give an early gift to one of their key constituencies, America's trial lawyers." The Oklahoman says, "It's a potential bonanza for the trial bar. Imagine television ads - perhaps crowding out spots for personal injury cases or mesothelioma claims - by lawyers eager to pursue past discrimination claims. Imagine, too, the jury awards in the oldest cases, where claimants would argue a new violation occurred with each paycheck."

Employee Free Choice Act debate likely in new Congress. The Detroit Free Press (1/26, Gallagher) reports, "For labor unions, it's payback time" and "their vehicle is the Employee Free Choice Act, or EFCA" which "would make it easier to organize unions and force companies to submit to binding arbitration for first contracts with newly formed unions. Penalties for firing union backers would be significantly increased." However, "Corporations call the bill a budget buster and want it stopped. The debate is likely to be one of the first big battles in the new Congress."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama blocks implementation of Bush's pending midnight regulations.

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:36:19 GMT

The AP (1/21, Loven) reports the one of President Barack Obama's "first acts Tuesday was to put the brakes on all pending regulations that the Bush administration tried to push through in its waning days." The "order went out shortly after Obama was inaugurated president, in a memorandum signed by new White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel." But in "some cases...the Bush administration moved too fast for the incoming administration. For example, just six weeks ago, the Bush administration issued revised endangered species regulations to reduce the input of federal scientists and to block the law from being used to fight global warming."

On its 44 blog, The Politico (1/21, Brown) also notes the Emanuel "memorandum ordering all agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration."

The Washington Post (1/21, A2, Goldstein) reports the "directive has become a first-day tradition among presidents, dating to Ronald Reagan in 1981, helping incoming administrations put their own philosophical stamp on the regulatory work that is a subtle but potent tool of presidential power." Emanuel's memo "does not apply to last-minute Bush administration rules that have taken legal effect, including a controversial one that went into place yesterday that allows health-care workers to refuse to take part in medical procedures, including abortions, to which they object."

ABC World News (1/20, story 4, 2:40, Tapper) reported President Obama "assumes control of this country's nuclear codes, and this afternoon, his Administration issued a memo telling all departments and agencies to halt implementation of all pending rules and regulations from the Bush Administration." Obama also signed "three presidential orders," and the Senate "confirmed seven of President Obama's nominees."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama team reviewing last minute "midnight" regulations.

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:09:25 GMT

The Chicago Tribune (1/20) reports that "Obama's team is conducting a wholesale review of scores of rules and regulations set in motion by Bush administration officials as his term wound down, the aides said, with an eye toward putting them on hold until the review is completed. Critics say some of the rules weaken worker protections and civil liberties." The Tribune adds that "for weeks, Obama aides have been reviewing at the so-called 'midnight' regulations approved by federal agencies" and "many are still in a mandatory waiting period and could be stopped by the new administration for further review.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama Administration Planning To Overturn Supreme Court Decision On Discrimination Challenges

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:59:16 GMT

The New York Times (1/5, A13, Pear) reports, "President-elect Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress are planning swift action to overturn a Supreme Court decision that made it much harder for people to challenge discrimination in employment, education, housing and other fields." There have been cases where judges have "reversed themselves and ruled in favor of employers" in order to be in line with the Supreme Court decision. Obama has pledged to appoint judges who know "real folks'" struggles, and "describes the bill as part of a broader effort by his incoming administration to 'update the social contract,' reinvigorate civil rights and close the pay gap between men and women."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

The National Organization of Women (NOW) Endorses Obama

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:59:57 GMT

Kim Gandy, chair of the political action committee for the national Organization of Women (NOW) reports that the organization has endorsed the Obama/Biden ticket because of their support of civil justice issues affecting women. She said that “Although it is very unusual for us to endorse in a presidential election, this is an unprecedented candidate and an unprecedented time for our country. The NOW PAC reviewed Sen. Obama’s record and public statements on issues that disproportionately affect the women of this nation, and I spoke with him at length about his commitment to women’s equality.” Specifically NOW cites stances that Obama has taken that benefit women.

On pay equity Sen. Obama has co-sponsored the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation works towards ending wage discrimination against women. Women who were discriminated against in their paychecks were forced to sue within 180 days of the first discriminatory check or be forever barred from bringing a valid claim. This is a common trap that is used to make laws meaningless because few can act fast enough to implement the law.

And John McCain and his running mate Palin oppose the efforts of Lilly Ledbetter to stop pay discrimination against women. He supports a Republican filibuster of the bills that Obama and Biden support. For more on that issue there is a great interview with Lilly Ledbetter herself on Jezebel.

Obama also opposed the nominations of George Bush’s three ultra right wing justices to the Supreme Court. These justices had consistent histories of voting against the individual rights of women. The Bush appointees have slammed the courtroom shut to many valid claims for justice and this disproportionately affects women.

Daniel Webster once said that “justice is the most important thing to man on earth”. As powerful interests attempt to take away from people the greatest source of justice in the world, the citizen jury and the courtrooms in the United States, Obama and Biden have a record of standing up for the common man against these titans of industry and government corruption. Interested in women’s rights and civil justice issues in this presidential campaign? See more at the NOW Obama website: http://www.nowpacs.org/2008/obama/

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons