Justice Ginsburg upset: USSC won't rule outside the law

[Truthmatters]

this law would require a unreasonable burden on the plaintives case ,its a burdensome law and designed to discourge compenstion seekers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You made a statement that you attribute as fact... That the law was created by republicans and signed by a Republican President.... How hard can it be to prove that, if your so sure it is true?

 

[Truthmatters]

http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003741.php

here is a summery of her case

 

[Truthmatters]

Ledbetter filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission less than a month after receiving the letter, but it was already too late. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights imposes a six-month limitations period on discriminatory acts, preventing her from even bringing the claim to court.

This is a quote from the above link

 

[Truthmatters]

You see the entire case was about wether the law posed an undue burden

 

[jillian]

http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003741.php

here is a summery of her case

You mean.... a right wing idealogue misstated Ginzberg's position? I'm shocked, I tell ya... shocked!!

 

[Care4all]

You made a statement that you attribute as fact... That the law was created by republicans and signed by a Republican President.... How hard can it be to prove that, if your so sure it is true?

according to TM's article, the 1964 civil rights act covered this.... if this is the case and another law not involved, then this would have been Johnson, and not certain, but probably a democratic congress...

the issue was it an undue burden to give only 180 days as the limit...

and i think it is not enough time to even gather evidence of such...

care

 

[Truthmatters]

The law has been added to a couple of times I tried to chase down the timetable of this particular part but didnt have much luck and didnt want to spend all day on it.

 

[jillian]

OK... I've read the decision now. The initial analysis in this thread inaccurately describes Judge Ginzberg's dissent....which was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer. (Souter was a Bush I appointee). The question was NOT whether the Court should "go around" Congress's mandate. (As its not the law which is the problem, but the application) It was whether the 11th Circuit inappropriately applied the law. The dissent accurately states:

A clue to congressional intent can be found in Title VII's backpay provision. The statute expressly provides that backpay may be awarded for a period of up to two years before the discrimination charge is filed. 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(g)(1) ("Back pay liability shall not accrue from a date more than two years prior to the filing of a charge with the Commission."). This prescription indicates that Congress contemplated challenges to pay discrimination commencing before, but continuing into, the 180-day filing period. See Morgan, 536 U. S., at 119 ("If Congress intended to limit liability to conduct occurring in the period within which the party must file the charge, it seems unlikely that Congress would have allowed recovery for two years of backpay."). As we recognized in Morgan, "the fact that Congress expressly limited the amount of recoverable damages elsewhere to a particular time period [i.e., two years] indicates that the [180-day] timely filing provision was not meant to serve as a specific limitation ... [on] the conduct that may be considered." Ibid.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=05-1074

So, essentially, instead of applying the same standard as would apply to a hostile work environment claim (which is always recognized to occur incrementally and over time) the Court applied the standard used in a discriminatory job termination case, which has a specific point of occurrance. Again, please note, THE ACT provides for back pay for 2 years prior to filing of a claim. There would be no reason for that level of back pay if one were not able to complain about events which occurred prior to the 180 day period.

As usual, Scalia, ScAlito and company got it wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Could the 2 year back pay not apply to the time from filing ( back 180 days) and the time it took to hear the case and make a decision?

Sorry but if the law says 180 days I see no plausable reason the 2 years would apply before the complaint was filed ( or rather 180 days back)

And I am still waiting for some evidence to your BOLD claim that republicans created this law. And that a Republican President signed it.

 

[Annie]

Who is it taht decides wether a law is unconstitutional?

But that was NOT the question before the court. I do believe you were arguing previously that the court should not act 'illegally.' Something about justices being impeached if they considered anything but the constitution? In this case, it appears she was just trying to use 'her common sense' to reach her decision.
Problem with that, what if a justice's 'common sense' says something YOU don't agree with?

 

[jillian]

Could the 2 year back pay not apply to the time from filing ( back 180 days) and the time it took to hear the case and make a decision?

Sorry but if the law says 180 days I see no plausable reason the 2 years would apply before the complaint was filed ( or rather 180 days back)

And I am still waiting for some evidence to your BOLD claim that republicans created this law. And that a Republican President signed it.

No. Again, I was going based on what was represented as the dissent and what the law ostensibly required. The dissent was correct about the law. It wasn't the law that's the problem as my link showed. It's the ScAlito Supreme Court's perversion of the law that's the problem as well as the repub courts continued evisceration of employment discrimination laws. Same thing they did with the whistleblowers...they protected the corporations.

 

[jillian]

But that was NOT the question before the court. I do believe you were arguing previously that the court should not act 'illegally.' Something about justices being impeached if they considered anything but the constitution? In this case, it appears she was just trying to use 'her common sense' to reach her decision.
Problem with that, what if a justice's 'common sense' says something YOU don't agree with?

The Court didn't act illegally. What the dissent did was show that the law did not require the result that Scalia and company arrived at.

And it wasn't a ruling on what the "Constitution" requires. It was a determination of a Federal Question based on a reading of Federal legislation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No. Again, I was going based on what was represented as the dissent and what the law ostensibly required. The dissent was correct about the law. It wasn't the law that's the problem as my link showed. It's the ScAlito Supreme Court's perversion of the law that's the problem as well as the repub courts continued evisceration of employment discrimination laws. Same thing they did with the whistleblowers...they protected the corporations.

And it wasn't a ruling on what the "Constitution" requires. It was a determination of a Federal Question based on a reading of Federal legislation.

Sorry, your obvious partisan position ensures I will assume there is a lot of room for disagreement. Still waiting for that evidence that republicans created this law.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Court didn't act illegally. What the dissent did was show that the law did not require the result that Scalia and company arrived at.

And it wasn't a ruling on what the "Constitution" requires. It was a determination of a Federal Question based on a reading of Federal legislation.

Wait? In the previous post you claimed that Scalia and company were utterly wrong. Now your just saying they disagreed as to what the law required. Which is it?

 

[Annie]

The Court didn't act illegally. What the dissent did was show that the law did not require the result that Scalia and company arrived at.

And it wasn't a ruling on what the "Constitution" requires. It was a determination of a Federal Question based on a reading of Federal legislation.

I never said it did.

 

[Gunny]

Psssssssssst... they can't. That was the point of the law.

The point of the law is to protect against discrimination. It doesn't say you have to prove you were discriminated against within 180 days. It says the decision was made because she did not FILE within 180 days.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

The 88th Congress of the US was controlled by a Dem majority.

As a sidenote, I find it quite interesting that Robert Byrd set a then-record time filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88th_United_States_Congress

 

[jillian]

The point of the law is to protect against discrimination. It doesn't say you have to prove you were discriminated against within 180 days. It says the decision was made because she did not FILE within 180 days.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

The 88th Congress of the US was controlled by a Dem majority.

As a sidenote, I find it quite interesting that Robert Byrd set a then-record time filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88th_United_States_Congress

Again, discrimination in awarding salaries is incremental and each paycheck is a new violation under normal reading of the law.

And after reading the actual decision I learned that the law wasn't a problem, it was the Scalia Court's reading of it. But I said that in an earlier post. It's the retgysgt who seems to have trouble following that part of things.

The law is fine... it just needed not to be de-fanged.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What about that claim that Republicans created this law and a Republican President signed it?

Your so biased any opinion you provide should obviously be viewed with a healthy disbelief.

Shall I go dig up all the 5-4 decisions when the left won and make unproven biased claims that A) they were partisan, B) that they supported the decision because democrats created the law in question, and C) that their decision was a perversion of the Constitution?

 

[Gunny]

Again, discrimination in awarding salaries is incremental and each paycheck is a new violation under normal reading of the law.

And after reading the actual decision I learned that the law wasn't a problem, it was the Scalia Court's reading of it. But I said that in an earlier post. It's the retgysgt who seems to have trouble following that part of things.

The law is fine... it just needed not to be de-fanged.

I'm not following. The decision based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act appears to me to be correct. I'm not sure what exactly it is you are objecting to.

I don't know that I agree with the law or not at this point, but that is irrelevant; which, is the point of this thread.