The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for many workers to sue their
employers for discrimination in pay, insisting in a 5-to-4 decision on a tight
time frame to file such cases. The dissenters said the ruling ignored workplace
realities.
The decision came in a case involving a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant in
Gadsden, Ala., the only woman among 16 men at the same management level, who was
paid less than any of her colleagues, including those with less seniority. She
learned that fact late in a career of nearly 20 years -- too late, according to
the Supreme Court's majority.
The court held on Tuesday that employees may not bring suit under the principal
federal anti-discrimination law unless they have filed a formal complaint with a
federal agency within 180 days after their pay was set. The timeline applies,
according to the decision, even if the effects of the initial discriminatory act
were not immediately apparent to the worker and even if they continue to the
present day.
From 2001 to 2006, workers brought nearly 40,000 pay discrimination cases. Many
such cases are likely to be barred by the court's interpretation of the
requirement in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that employees make
their charge within 180 days ''after the alleged unlawful employment practice
occurred.''
Workplace experts said the ruling would have broad ramifications and would
narrow the legal options of many employees.
In an opinion by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the majority rejected the view of
the federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that each
paycheck that reflects the initial discrimination is itself a discriminatory act
that resets the clock on the 180-day period, under a rule known as ''paycheck
accrual.''
''Current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged
discrimination,'' Justice Alito said in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John
G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence
Thomas. Justice Thomas once headed the employment commission, the chief enforcer
of workers' rights under the statute at issue in this case, usually referred to
simply as Title VII.
Under its longstanding interpretation of the statute, the commission actively
supported the plaintiff, Lilly M. Ledbetter, in the lower courts. But after the
Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last June, the Bush administration
disavowed the agency's position and filed a brief on the side of the employer.
In a vigorous dissenting opinion that she read from the bench, Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg said the majority opinion ''overlooks common characteristics of
pay discrimination.'' She said that given the secrecy in most workplaces about
salaries, many employees would have no idea within 180 days that they had
received a lower raise than others.
An initial disparity, even if known to the employee, might be small, Justice
Ginsburg said, leading an employee, particularly a woman or a member of a
minority group ''trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment'' to avoid
''making waves.'' Justice Ginsburg noted that even a small differential ''will
expand exponentially over an employee's working life if raises are set as a
percentage of prior pay.''
Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer joined the
dissent.
Ms. Ledbetter's salary was initially the same as that of her male colleagues.
But over time, as she received smaller raises, a substantial disparity grew. By
the time she brought suit in 1998, her salary fell short by as much as 40
percent; she was making $3,727 a month, while the lowest-paid man was making
$4,286.
A jury in Federal District Court in Birmingham, Ala., awarded her more than $3
million in back pay and compensatory and punitive damages, which the trial judge
reduced to $360,000. But the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit, in Atlanta, erased the verdict entirely, ruling that because Ms.
Ledbetter could not show that she was the victim of intentional discrimination
during the 180 days before she filed her complaint, she had not suffered an
''unlawful employment practice'' to which Title VII applied.
Several other federal appeals courts had accepted the employment commission's
more relaxed view of the 180-day requirement. The justices accepted Ms.
Ledbetter's appeal, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, No. 05-1074,
to resolve the conflict.
Title VII's prohibition of workplace discrimination applies not just to pay but
also to specific actions like refusal to hire or promote, denial of a desired
transfer and dismissal. Justice Ginsburg argued in her dissenting opinion that
while these ''singular discrete acts'' are readily apparent to an employee who
can then make a timely complaint, pay discrimination often presents a more
ambiguous picture. She said the court should treat a pay claim as it treated a
claim for a ''hostile work environment'' in a 2002 decision, permitting a charge
to be filed ''based on the cumulative effect of individual acts.''
In response, Justice Alito dismissed this as a ''policy argument'' with ''no
support in the statute.''
As with an abortion ruling last month, this decision showed the impact of
Justice Alito's presence on the court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom he
succeeded, would almost certainly have voted the other way, bringing the
opposite outcome.
The impact of the decision on women may be somewhat limited by the availability
of another federal law against sex discrimination in the workplace, the Equal
Pay Act, which does not contain the 180-day requirement. Ms. Ledbetter initially
included an Equal Pay Act complaint, but did not pursue it. That law has
additional procedural hurdles and a low damage cap that excludes punitive
damages. It does not cover discrimination on the basis of race or Title VII's
other protected categories.
In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg invited Congress to overturn the decision, as
it did 15 years ago with a series of Supreme Court rulings on civil rights.
''Once again, the ball is in Congress's court,'' she said. Within hours, Senator
Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is seeking the Democratic nomination,
announced her intention to submit such a bill.