House Passes Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007
In a 225-199 vote, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, in effect reversing the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., which tightened the statute of limitations employees have to sue employers for pay discrimination. H.R. 2831, passed July 31, begins the...
August 02, 2007 at 05:17 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In a 225-199 vote, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, in effect reversing the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., which tightened the statute of limitations employees have to sue employers for pay discrimination.
H.R. 2831, passed July 31, begins the statute of limitations anew “each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice.” It amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. George Miller and cosponsored by 93 other House Democrats, passed mainly with Democratic support–223 of 225 votes in favor of passage were Democratic.
In a statement, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi urged President Bush to approve the act. “The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores the ability of women and all workers who are protected by anti-discrimination and civil rights laws access to our judicial system to vindicate their rights when they have been harmed by a discrimination,” she said. “Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental value. The president should join the House on the side of all American workers in standing for pay equity and against discrimination.”
The White House has expressed its intention to veto the bill. In a statement from the White House released before passage of the bill, the administration said it “strongly opposes” H.R. 2831.
“This legislation does not appear to be based on evidence that the current statute of limitations principles have caused any systemic prejudice to the interests of employees,” the statement read, “but it is reasonable to expect the bill's vastly expanded statute of limitations would exacerbate the existing heavy burden on the courts by encouraging the filing of stale claims.”
In a 225-199 vote, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, in effect reversing the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v.
H.R. 2831, passed July 31, begins the statute of limitations anew “each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice.” It amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. George Miller and cosponsored by 93 other House Democrats, passed mainly with Democratic support–223 of 225 votes in favor of passage were Democratic.
In a statement, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi urged President Bush to approve the act. “The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores the ability of women and all workers who are protected by anti-discrimination and civil rights laws access to our judicial system to vindicate their rights when they have been harmed by a discrimination,” she said. “Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental value. The president should join the House on the side of all American workers in standing for pay equity and against discrimination.”
The White House has expressed its intention to veto the bill. In a statement from the White House released before passage of the bill, the administration said it “strongly opposes” H.R. 2831.
“This legislation does not appear to be based on evidence that the current statute of limitations principles have caused any systemic prejudice to the interests of employees,” the statement read, “but it is reasonable to expect the bill's vastly expanded statute of limitations would exacerbate the existing heavy burden on the courts by encouraging the filing of stale claims.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInternal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute readInside Track: AI Is Sure to Fray Big Law's Devotion to Billable Hour
Trending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250