Ledbetter Law Makes Sex Discrimination Suits Worse

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Oh, great, how sexist can Mr. Dealey be, using a wild fanciful red herring of a lawyer-based hypothetical to argue again ever fixing pay inequities. Dealey's argument is not unlike the one made by right wing racists who argued that apartheid should not be ended in South Africa because of retribution. How horrible would it be for women to get the back pay they were due? Just horrible! Well, thankfully, President Obama is on the right side of history, not Sam Dealey all these sexist old boy right wingers. And don't think fair minded women and men will soon forget how the majority of Republicans voted on this (i.e. Senator Ensign of Nevada). Let the last vestiges of the old boys club struggle to hold on to their pathetic unAmerican values. This is just another nail in the coffin of the Republican party. Thanks for the hammer.

Julia H. of NV 11:29AM January 29, 2009

The whole article is about a badly written bill, not about righting a social wrong. A well written bill which solved the problem would be supported by everyone (except of a handful of wackos).
What he is pointing out is a weakness in the way laws are written. All you (the people who responded) can see is the righting of a social wrong. But what the lawyers lobby in Washington sees, are opportunities which can be had by altering the bill to allow for the maximum number of lawsuits possible.
Badly written bills are just as newsworthy as righting social wrongs. If you let emotions get in the way of good sense, you will never see the forest for the trees.

David P of TX 11:07AM January 29, 2009

This whole argument over "equal pay for equal work" has to be pursued very carefully. Women, on average, make less than men simply because they 1) do not pursue the high-paying professions like men do, and 2) often have children which forces them to stop working; when they return to work, usually their skillhave declined and they cannot command the same pay. So overall, women are always going to be paid less than men.
Also, you are not supposed to be paid for "work" really, you are paid for PRODUCTIVITY. How much you work means nothing. It's what you produce ultimately. Obviously it's not that simple, but I mean both sides have merit.
A business owner may have specific reasons for paying a woman less than a man though; for example, perhaps too many female employees need to take time off from work for children, and thus are not as productive; they cost more money, and as such, should not command the same pay as the man. But it depends.
And no, the Heritage Foundation is not any "suspect" organization, they are just a conservative/libertarian organization; one thing the political Left does not seem to realize is that 1) it is very difficult to enforce equality, and 2) "equality" is a loaded word that stirs up passions in people, but can have completely different meanings to different people.

Kyle of 10:44AM January 29, 2009

You would understand the ramifications of a constant situation of working harder for less. Men skate by and still discriminate in so many ways it is unbelievable.

of 10:43AM January 29, 2009

this "law" is not even close to justice. it's only the first in many payback schemes to "trial liars" for the child-like person that quite a few of you children helped in the coups that has started the destruction of MY COUNTRY!!!
when I ponder the reason for the initial Supreme Court decision, it angers me that descrinination against any of the legal, hard-working citizens of MY COUNTRY had to endure.
unfortunately, "karl's" pupil can't afford to stop creating in the "so-called-minds" of you "socialist/children" some of the greatest weapons they continue to "load".....ENVY, GREED , VICTIMOLOGY ,SLOTH ( BUT ONLY IF the zar and commrades can affix a crying label).... GOD (SORRY FOR USING DIRTY LANGUAGE) HELP MY COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!

Russelll A. Lissuzzo of IL 10:38AM January 29, 2009

I don't agree with the premise that any level of Government should be able to evaluate and interfere with the pay practices of a private employer. I think any law that allows that interference is BAD LAW.

Larry of MO 10:31AM January 29, 2009

Women have been given preferential treatment for years.
Now they will get raises at a higher rate when compared to men and get compensated for past"discrimination" regardless of their performance.
It will take years for the reverse discrimination to be proven, and it will be tagged as being "nonsense".
We need ot get over this issue and focus on this ONE country.

SAS of MI 10:24AM January 29, 2009

Do you think that making a law like this is going to correct the problem? All they have to do is show that the woman, that is in question, did not perform up to standards. They do the same thing with any employee that they don't want to pay. Now there will be lawsuits being filed by every woman looking for a big pay day. It doesn't matter if it is gender or race, there are always some way for someone to make a quick buck. This is just another way for a lawyer to make a name for themselves.

of VA 10:22AM January 29, 2009

Good grief. More proof that anyone and everyone can call themselves a journalist. Let's not forget the real villian here, Goodyear. They aslo took retribution on Mrs. Ledbetter by moving her to a job that requires the lifting of Hummer tires, just to show that they can. Nice American company. USA, USA!

DC Dunne of TX 10:17AM January 29, 2009

If Congress is simply returning the law to where it stood prior to the Supreme Court decision of a few years ago, where the examples of what you are talking about? How many times did your worst case scenario play out? All Congress did was to return the law to where it was until a few years ago. Where is your proof?????

Joe S of NH 10:14AM January 29, 2009