WORKERS LOSE KEY PAY-DISCRIMINATION RIGHTS
For almost 20 years, Lilly Ledbetter worked hard for Goodyear. That changed when someone at work left Ms. Ledbetter an anonymous note showing that since the day she started working she had received consistently and significantly less pay than her male co-workers doing the same job. She was horrified, and took her case to court. And she won in a trial by jury. The jury found that the company violated federal civil rights laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on a person's sex. The jury ordered Goodyear to make up for the unfair treatment by paying Ms. Ledbetter what it should have been paying her all along, plus damages. But Goodyear appealed, and the case went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
In May 2006 the Court ruled against Lilly Ledbetter. It said she couldn't sue because she hadn't filed a complaint within 180 days of Goodyear's decision to pay her less than the men -- even though Ledbetter had no way of knowing the company was paying her less until she got an anonymous tip many years later.
She lost by one vote.
In this case, the Court's ruling will affect thousands of workers across the country. The ruling sets a dangerous new precedent and makes it easier for companies to discriminate. And thousands of workers may have no legal recourse when they are treated unfairly based on sex, race, religion or nationality.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007)
HARASSED, FIRED AND UP THE CREEK. WHERE'S THE FAIRNESS?
Rosalind Smith worked as an administrative assistant at PSI Services II Inc. Over the course of three years, she was repeatedly harassed by a co-worker. His egregious and offensive behavior included propositioning her for one night stands, asking her whether her fiancé sexually satisfied her, making vulgar and sexually suggestive comments about her body, grabbing and peering down her blouse, ogling her breasts, and licking his lips and gyrating against her from behind. When Ms. Smith complained to a supervisor about her co-worker's behavior, she was offered the alternative of accepting a demotion or a permanent layoff.
Ms. Smith took her employer to court in an attempt to enforce her civil rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was originally passed to prohibit employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. She was denied the right to go to court, however, because her employment contract had been modified without her knowledge to say that she couldn't go to court if her civil rights were violated. She had to take her claims to an "impartial" referee through a process called arbitration. The arbitrator who heard Ms. Smith's case decided that her co-worker's conduct was highly offensive, but that the harassment was not "pervasive and regular enough" to have a detrimental effect. She appealed, and although the court found that the arbitrator had misapplied the law, there were no legal grounds to overturn the arbitrator's decision.
Ms. Smith was repeatedly and egregiously harassed on the job. She complained and was retaliated against. Her contract didn't allow her the right to go to court. An arbitrator made a mistake, yet she was told there was nothing she could do. Does this sound fair to you?
Smith v. PSI Services II Inc., Troy Hughes, and John Does 1-10, J/S/I (2001)
David Chittister, a former Acting Director at the Department of Community and Economic Development, was granted paid sick leave by his employer when both his doctor and psychologist confirmed that he had chronic reoccurring depression along with coronary artery disease and chronic gastritis, and that work stress was making his health deteriorate further. While on sick leave, Mr. Chittister's employer revoked his leave and asked him to return to work with only a few days' notice. After David did not return, he was fired.
Mr. Chittister took his employer to court on the grounds that it had violated the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This act requires an employer (among other things) to provide up to twelve weeks of leave because of a serious health condition that makes an employee unable to perform his or her job. The act also says that an employee must be compensated if the employer interferes with any of the guaranteed rights. Mr. Chittister believed this important law would protect people like him, because his former employer unfairly denied his leave and fired him. The jury thought so too, and found in Mr. Chittister's favor. But the court threw the case out on a technicality. The court applied a narrow interpretation of the Constitution's Eleventh Amendment and said that private suits against states were prohibited, and because the state was Mr. Chittister's employer, his hands were tied. Mr. Chittister appealed and lost again at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, this time in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, before his promotion to the Supreme Court.
More and more workers are powerless to sue their employer, even if the employer did something illegal, if that employer is the state. This makes it easier for certain employers to discriminate.
Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development (2000)
Imagine if you took time off from work you were legally entitled to and you got fired? Then imagine that no court would help you get your job back or uphold your rights. To David McGregor this wasn't imaginary, it was real.
David McGregor was a corrections officer with the New York State Department of Correctional Services. He told his employer that he needed some time off to accompany his pregnant wife to medical appointments and Lamaze classes. Three days after taking time off he was suspended. Soon after that, he was fired.
McGregor took his employer to court to enforce his rights under a federal law called the Family Medical Leave Act (the law grants up to 12 weeks off to care for a family member with a serious medical condition, among other things). His employer didn't dispute the charges but argued that because they are a state entity they can't be sued by their employees (under a false interpretation of an amendment in the Constitution). The court agreed and dismissed the case. McGregor lost his job, and there was nothing he could do.
More and more workers are powerless to sue their employer, even if the employer did something illegal, if that employer is the state. And it makes it easier for certain employers to discriminate.
McGregor v. Goord (1998)
FREE TO DISCRIMINATE (IF THE EMPLOYER IS THE STATE)
John Alden and his co-workers sued their employer, the State of Maine, for failing to pay them, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Supreme Court had already held that states cannot be sued for violations of this law in federal court, so these workers were forced to sue in state court. But the Supreme Court ruled that the state could not be sued in state court either for back pay or damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This ruling leaves people powerless to sue their employer, even if the employer did something illegal, if that employer is their state.
Alden v. Maine (1999)
If you had to choose between taking a job and signing away your civil rights, which would it be? This was the choice that Donald Lagatree had to make. Because he chose his rights, Donald was out of a job. Donald thought it was unfair for his company to force him to sign an arbitration agreement in order to work for them. To Donald it was important to retain his civil rights -- including the right to a jury trial -- in the event that he faced employment discrimination. The law firm withdrew its offer to hire Donald.
Arbitration lacks the important protections of our traditional justice system. It is no wonder so many corporations want to force their employees to sign these agreements. Don't corporations have enough power as it is? Is it really fair to allow them to circumvent the traditional legal system when employment discrimination is at issue?
EEOC v. Luce Howard (2002; courtesy of civilrights.org).
When Saint Clair Adams was hired at Circuit City he signed a waiver that took away his right to sue, and instead agreed to have any claims be heard by an arbitrator. He left his job at Circuit City a year later and sent a request demanding an arbitration hearing to appeal his benefits. But the company ignored his request, so Mr. Adams filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination and harassment based on his sexual orientation.
Mr. Adams wanted a day in court, but Circuit City argued that his discrimination claim had to be arbitrated under the Federal Arbitration Act. The company pointed to the waiver Mr. Adams had signed as part of his application for employment.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act required Mr. Adams to arbitrate his claim outside of court. That law applies to all employment contracts, except for those of employees working in the transportation industry, the Court held. The decision has made it much easier for employers to force their employees to contract away their right to bring a suit in court. Some states had laws that prohibited employers from forcing their employees to waive away their rights. But this case, and a previous case Southland Corp. v. Keating, has given employers nationwide more power to force employees into signing arbitration agreements.
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams (2001)
Is it fair for states to be able to violate the law, but not pay the victims the money they are owed? For years, state troopers like Douglas King were working overtime and not getting paid for it. Failing to compensate hourly workers for overtime is a direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Mr. King and more than 200 Nebraska state troopers went to court to get compensation. The state offered the troopers "comp" time instead, but that doesn't pay the bills. The court was forced to follow the Supreme Court's earlier Alden v. Maine decision, which said that state employees can't get money for violations of the FLSA.
King v. State (courtesy of civilrights.org)
Patricia Garrett was a supervising nurse at the University of Alabama's Medical Center when she was diagnosed and treated for breast cancer. Despite being able to perform all of her job responsibilities, when Ms. Garrett returned to work she was transferred and demoted. When she sued, the Supreme Court ruled that although private employers can be sued for back pay when they discriminate, states couldn't. Therefore, despite being discriminated against on the basis of a disability, Patricia was unable to recover lost earnings from the state-run medical center.
Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett (2001)
Jose Castro worked at Hoffman Plastics, but when Mr. Castro and others supported a union-organizing campaign they were fired. The National Labor Relations Board ruled that firing these workers violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and ordered Hoffman Plastics to compensate the plaintiffs for wages they would have earned had they not been fired.
In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that the NLRB couldn't award post-termination back pay to Mr. Castro and others because they were undocumented and not able to work legally in the United States. Despite the fact that Hoffman Plastics had violated federal law by firing Mr. Castro and others for organizing, the workers lost the wages they would have earned and could do nothing about it.
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. N.L.R.B. (2002)
For more information on workers' rights, go to that section.