Go to Original
Republican Senators Block Pay Discrimination Measure
By Carl Hulse
The New York Times
Thursday 24 April 2008
Washington - Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a measure intended to
overturn a Supreme Court decision limiting pay discrimination suits in a politically
charged vote certain to be replayed in the presidential and Congressional campaigns.
By a vote of 56 to 42, the Senate fell four votes short of the 60 required
to begin consideration of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named for an Alabama
woman who lost a case against the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company when the
court found she not did file her complaint in time. Ms. Ledbetter had been paid
as much as 40 percent less than her male counterparts doing the same job, according
to her allies.
The political elements of the debate were unmistakable. Unable to reach an
agreement with Republicans, Democrats did not convene the Senate until 5 p.m.
so their two presidential candidates - Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton
of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois - could return from the campaign
trail. Both spoke in favor of the legislation.
The campaign arm of Senate Democrats quickly issued news releases attacking
Republicans up for re-election who opposed the procedural vote. And Democrats
warned Republicans that they would hear from voters on an issue of major import
to women as they accused Republicans of missing an opportunity to help victims
of pay discrimination pursue justice in court.
"I have a terrible feeling the Senate just won't get it,"
said Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, who suggested that the
still-male-dominated Senate remained out of touch about the nation's changing
workplaces. "But the women will get it, and we will start a revolution."
Republicans said the proposal to ease the time constraints would prompt more
lawsuits and lead to litigation over outdated cases. "This debate today
is not about allowing, favoring or supporting discrimination," said Senator
Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia.
Other Republicans said Democrats were simply determined to force potentially
vulnerable senators up for re-election to take a tough vote while putting Senator
John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, on
the spot.
"Welcome to gotcha politics 2008," said Senator Mike Enzi, Republican
of Wyoming.
Mr. McCain, who was campaigning in Louisiana, skipped the vote but told reporters
he would have opposed the bill since it could contribute to frivolous lawsuits
harmful to businesses.
Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, accused Democrats of unfairly trying
to paint opponents of the bill as unsympathetic to victims of salary discrimination.
"The only ones who will see an increase in pay are some of the trial lawyers
who bring the cases," he said.
Ms. Ledbetter, who is now retired, watched the debate from the Senate gallery.
Backers of the bill said it was unfair for the court to throw out a jury award
in her favor because she had not initiated legal action within six months of
the first instance of discrimination. They noted that she, like many others
in the work force, could not be certain what her colleagues were making. Republicans
said Ms. Ledbetter had testified during court proceedings that she was aware
of some inequity in salary relative to male co-workers.
Ms. Ledbetter said the disparity spilled over into her pension and her Social
Security payment. "They treated me like a second-class citizen not only
when I worked, but for the rest of my life," she said before the vote.
Six Republicans sided with Democrats, including four facing potentially difficult
re-election fights: Senators Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine,
Gordon H. Smith of Oregon and John E. Sununu of New Hampshire.
"We won't take no for an answer," said Senator Edward M.
Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a chief sponsor of the bill. "This
issue isn't going away."
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story