redblueamerica.com

Women should receive equal pay for equal work. A simple concept, but is it enforceable?

Maybe not. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that Lilly Ledbetter couldn't sue her former employer for sexual discrimination because she waited too long -- more than the 180-day limit -- after receiving her first unfair paycheck. But Ledbetter said she didn't discover the details of the discrimination until she had worked more than 18 years, making such a filing impossible. A new Senate bill would widen the window for sexual discrimination lawsuits, but Senate Republicans are opposed.

Should it become law? Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis, moderators of RedBlueAmerica.com, weigh in.

Ben Boychuk

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act is a misnomer. Ledbetter certainly wouldn't benefit -- Congress can't restore the $3.3 million judgment that the Supreme Court rightly tossed out in 2007. And the law wouldn't be the least bit fair. If signed into law, the measure would be a boon for trial lawyers but a bust for equal justice.

The Supreme Court ruled in Ledbetter's case that federal law limited lawsuits to 180 days after an alleged act of discrimination took place. The new bill would let women sue employers for wage discrimination up to 180 days after they leave a job, even if the discrimination occurred years or even decades earlier. What's wrong with that? Employees come and go. Memories fade. Records get lost. People die. But the possibility of a lawsuit lives forever. How is that justice?

Such a law wouldn't help women entering the workplace for the first time, any more than a law mandating absolute, dollar-for-dollar equal pay for men and women would eliminate inequality. Mandates hurt more than they help. Employers would find ways to protect themselves and their bottom lines, even if that means hiring fewer people or cutting wages across the board. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act would be a setback for women. President Bush would do well to veto it if it should ever reach his desk.

Joel Mathis

Last year's Supreme Court decision was a boon for sexists and cheats. In ruling against Lilly Ledbetter, the court said this to businesses: "Go ahead and discriminate against your female employees! If you can hide your wrongdoing for six months, you're in the clear!"

Perhaps this was the correct technical ruling, but it's awful policy. A woman has the right to expect she will receive the same wages as a man for doing the same good job as a man. Furthermore, she has the right to hold her employer accountable for falling short of the standard -- and the right to expect there will be no artificial barriers to that accountability.

The proposed bill removes those barriers. It doesn't let a woman sue for up to 180 days after she has left a job; it lets her sue up to 180 days after the last act of discrimination. (Under the Supreme Court ruling, the clock starts ticking with the first such act.) If employers don't want to see the time limit constantly extended into the future, all they have to do is stop handing out unfair paychecks! When the discrimination ends, so does the threat of a lawsuit.

That hardly plagues businesses with the prospect of unending litigation, but it does give female employees a fighting chance at fair pay. Congress should pass this important bill.