U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-06-2012, 10:06 AM
 
77,531 posts, read 33,038,709 times
Reputation: 15431

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
So you're saying that constraining the timeframe of a lawsuit to 180 days from the FIRST discriminatory paycheck is NOT infringing on the right for someone to sue over pay discrimination?
First, I'm glad you agree that women can legally and have legally been able to sue for unequal pay.

The courts ruled that she could not sue under Civil Rights legislation but said she could sue under the Equal pay law I linked to above.

Courts make these type of rulings all the time. Why did she simply not re-file under the correct set of laws?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-06-2012, 10:07 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,037 posts, read 13,912,413 times
Reputation: 6413
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
So you're willing to guarantee that not only is no other woman getting underpaid, but in the future it will never happen, hence why we don't need a law that supports women's right to sue over pay discrimination?
what about the men who are underpaid???

and BTW, who determines what is underpaid

should the worst mechanic in town be paid the same as the best mechaic in town, just becuase they have the same TITLE of mechanic and have the same time in grade/time in service?????


how about a PHRASE that will send liberals and unions running....."pay for performance"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,180,786 times
Reputation: 27563
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
Do you have some sort of training in presenting strawmen arguments? Who cares when she knew about it? How does that affect that she was discriminated against?
That affects the actions she would have been able to do.
Statute of limitations exist all over my friend.

From 1964 until 2009 there was no problem with the Civil Rights law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
6,754 posts, read 3,377,065 times
Reputation: 2820
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Good Lord, that's the way it's been for I don't know how long for both men and women.
She waited 6 years and even lied to Congress about it.

So we have this woman who sat on her bumkiss for 6 years before deciding.."Hey this isn't fair" ?
Who cares how long she waited to sue? She was still being discriminated against up to the last paycheck she received before she sued. Saying that b/c she couldn't find out how much her co-workers were making w/in the first 6months of her job to compare pay rates that she doesn't get to sue over discrimination is effing absurd!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 10:12 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,037 posts, read 13,912,413 times
Reputation: 6413
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
How does that affect that she was discriminated against?....................
..............................
Who cares how long she waited to sue? She was still being discriminated against up to the last paycheck she received before she sued. Saying that b/c she couldn't find out how much her co-workers were making w/in the first 6months of her job to compare pay rates that she doesn't get to sue over discrimination is effing absurd!






she WASNT discriminated against

she worked there ...for 20 years no less

she started with the same pay....shows ZERO discrimination....

her RAISES were not as big as some other people.......

doesnt prove discrimination...it proves she didnt do as good as a JOB as the others

your RAISES are based on your ANNUAL REVIEW

employee "A" get an annual review stating he is better than avergae...gets awarded a 5% raise..average people got a 4% raise

employee "B" gets an annual review stating he is one of the best, way above average...he gets a 8% raise


so some got a 4%, some got a 5%, some got a 8% raises...is that discrimination.....nope its PAY FOR PERFORMANCE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
6,754 posts, read 3,377,065 times
Reputation: 2820
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
It's a procedural change that helps with regards to each case that filed - but that this is some great advancement for women - I don't see it.
Giving support to to fight discrimination is an advancement for everyone, especially those most likely to be discriminated against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
First, I'm glad you agree that women can legally and have legally been able to sue for unequal pay.

The courts ruled that she could not sue under Civil Rights legislation but said she could sue under the Equal pay law I linked to above.

Courts make these type of rulings all the time. Why did she simply not re-file under the correct set of laws?
And? Your point is that she should have picked a better law to sue under?

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
what about the men who are underpaid???

and BTW, who determines what is underpaid

should the worst mechanic in town be paid the same as the best mechaic in town, just becuase they have the same TITLE of mechanic and have the same time in grade/time in service?????


how about a PHRASE that will send liberals and unions running....."pay for performance"
They are covered under the same law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
That affects the actions she would have been able to do.
Statute of limitations exist all over my friend.

From 1964 until 2009 there was no problem with the Civil Rights law.
To penalize someone for not knowing what they're coworkers make w/in the first six months of employment is AB. SURD!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
11,647 posts, read 8,231,119 times
Reputation: 5743
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
Absolutely right, but until Congress acted, based on the conservatives on the Supreme Court, if you had been paid unfairly you would have been out of luck in trying to get that unfairness redressed.

If you ever find yourself in a position where you are not paid fairly and equally you can thank President Obama and the Congress for giving you the ability to challenge that in court.
Why?

What is the Lily Ledbetter Act?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
6,754 posts, read 3,377,065 times
Reputation: 2820
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
she WASNT discriminated against

she worked there ...for 20 years no less

she started with the same pay....shows ZERO discrimination....

her RAISES were not as big as some other people.......

doesnt prove discrimination...it proves she didnt do as good as a JOB as the others

your RAISES are based on your ANNUAL REVIEW

employee "A" get an annual review stating he is better than avergae...gets awarded a 5% raise..average people got a 4% raise

employee "B" gets an annual review stating he is one of the best, way above average...he gets a 8% raise


so some got a 4%, some got a 5%, some got a 8% raises...is that discrimination.....nope its PAY FOR PERFORMANCE
Really? So you have insight into the case that shows her raises deserved to be less than ALL her male coworkers? That's why lawsuits happen: to prove things. Setting up ridiculous limitations that hamper someone's ability to prove they were discriminated against undercuts their right the equal pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Vermont
10,267 posts, read 11,141,529 times
Reputation: 14063
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
she WASNT discriminated against

she worked there ...for 20 years no less

she started with the same pay....shows ZERO discrimination....

her RAISES were not as big as some other people.......

so some got a 4%, some got a 5%, some got a 8% raises...is that discrimination.....nope its PAY FOR PERFORMANCE
So based on your encyclopedic knowledge of all the evidence in the case you know with certainty that the jury that sat on the case and heard all the evidence and concluded that she was discriminated against was wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 10:47 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,037 posts, read 13,912,413 times
Reputation: 6413
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
So based on your encyclopedic knowledge of all the evidence in the case you know with certainty that the jury that sat on the case and heard all the evidence and concluded that she was discriminated against was wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up.
wow

talk about someone NOT having knowledge


The District Court found in favor of Goodyear on the Equal Pay Act claim, because that Act allows pay differences that are based on merit.

The court allowed the Title VII and other claims to proceed to trial. Ledbetter claimed that she had been evaluated unfairly because of her sex and therefore had been paid significantly less than her male colleagues. Goodyear claimed that their evaluations were non-discriminatory and focused only on worker competence.

The biased jury found for Ledbetter and awarded back pay and damages, why becasue they wanted to stick it to a big business.

Goodyear appealed, arguing that all claims to damages before September 26, 1997 were void due to the statute of limitations placed on discrimination claims.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court's decision.




Quote:
Ledbetter claimed that she had been evaluated unfairly
so EVEN SHE states that it was not her PAY that was set in a discimiatory way...nut her ANNUAL REVIEWS....why didnt she APPEAL the rewiews as they happened????????????? annually

"hey Boss, I think I did a better job, than you are rating me. How about a better rating and a raise"....did she do that.....no...SHE FAILED to fight for herself
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top