Welcome to Talking Justice Sign in | Join | Help
in
Justice Talking About All Blogs Today's Blog Forums
The AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest, formerly known as the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, was founded in 1975 to foster knowledge about law and the administration of justice, especially with respect to individual rights, free enterprise, property ownership, limited government, and a fair and efficient judiciary.

About Ted Frank

Ted Frank is a resident fellow at AEI and director of the AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest, where he manages the Institute’s research in legal studies. Before joining AEI, Mr. Frank was a litigator from 1995 to 2005. He has written for law reviews, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and National Review Online. Mr. Frank clerked for Judge Frank H. Easterbrook on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He writes for the award-winning legal reform blogs Point of Law and Overlawyered, and the Wall Street Journal has called him a “leading tort-reform advocate.”

The Ledbetter case and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

By a 5-4 margin in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber (PDF), the Supreme Court ruled last May that the 180-day deadline for filing a discrimination lawsuit cannot be stretched to serve as the basis of the filing of suits today based on the lingering effects of employment decisions taken years ago.

This should be noncontroversial.  Statutes of limitations are important for justice.  Without a statute of limitations, someone can sue for very old alleged injuries, and a defendant would not have a fair chance to defend herself.  (Ledbetter sued over her pay after she was retired!)  Memories fade, evidentiary documents are discarded, people change employers.  If an employee can wait until a middle manager of years ago died before accusing the company of discrimination, justice is impossible.  Yet some in Congress, upset at the result in Ledbetter , propose a statute that would entirely abolish the statute of limitations.  The House even passed such a law, though the Senate refrained once President Bush threatened to veto the bill. 

Ironically, no change in the law was necessary for Ledbetter to recover.  As Hans Bader notes , and the five-justice majority stated, there already exists a law that would have permitted Ledbetter to sue.  The Equal Pay Act specifically bans sex discrimination in pay and has a longer statute of limitations.  But Ledbetter's attorney chose to sue under the more difficult law, Title VII.

Similarly, those victimized by racial discrimination need not rely on the 180-day statute of limitations for Title VII.  42 U.S.C. § 1981 has a four-year statute of limitations for intentional racial discrimination in contracts. 

What is really happening is that special interest groups hoping for an unprecedented expansion of liability are misrepresenting the effect of the Ledbetter case to create support for their legislation. 

But who does such legislation expanding the right to sue really help?  As I note in my most recent law review article , there is an inverse relationship between wages and legal restrictions on employment-at-will.  Two economists working for Rand found in 1992 that wrongful termination suits cause a decline in employment about equivalent to a 10% decrease in wages--and that was before the effects of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 were fully measured. 

Employers are not stupid.  To the extent every employee is a potential lawsuit, that is a cost of hiring an employee.  As those costs go up, employers will hire fewer employees, and charge "insurance" to the employees they do hire by reducing their wages to account for the possibility of a future lawsuit.  If the misnamed "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" passes, the vast majority of workers will be worse off, as money that would have gone to pay employees will instead go to pay attorneys.  There should be a better reason to pass such harmful legislation than the fact that Ms. Ledbetter's attorney sued under the wrong statute.  If Congress really wishes to help workers, they should reject this legislation, and aim a closer eye at the liability system that hurts our economy.
Published Monday, February 04, 2008 12:02 AM by Ted Frank

© American Enterprise Institute Legal Center for the Public Interest. All rights reserved.

Comments

Please note that we encourage a vigorous debate on the issues from all points along the political spectrum on the Talking Justice blogs and discussion forums. However, we ask that you stay to the topic of the particular blog or forum post and that the debate remain civil. Profanity, spam and personal attacks on the program host or guests, contributors or other Talking Justice users will not be tolerated and are subject to deletion without notice. Moreover, any comment which is patently offensive, threatening or potentially libelous will be removed without notice. Persons who repeatedly attempt to post material that violates the site policies may, at the discretion of Justice Talking, be blocked from participating in the future.

Justice Talking, not the individual bloggers on this site, will make all decisions about whether comments to the blogs contained here should be edited or removed and whether individuals who violate our policies will be allowed to continue to post. Also, please note that, like all of the content on the Justice Talking radio show, the views expressed on these blogs and discussion boards belong solely to the person or organization posting them and do not reflect the views or opinions of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, the University of Pennsylvania, or NPR.



 

Overlawyered said:

My monthly post for NPR's Talking Justice weblog is about their topic of the week, the Ledbetter Supreme Court case and the associated (and counterproductive) legislation passed by the House....

February 4, 2008 12:09 AM
 

macmanus said:

On your program the opponents of free access to pay information consistently site the importance of the open market in allowing employers to compete for the best employees. From Adam Smith forward the market presumes a free and open exchange of information so that informed decisions can be made. Employers know the pay history of employees and prospective employees. An open market would presume that employees have open information as well so they can make informed  decisions.

February 7, 2008 5:53 AM
 

Overlawyered said:

Roger Clegg on pending employment litigation legislation in Congress. I commented on the Lilly Ledbetter bill for NPR's "Talking Justice" blog....

February 8, 2008 10:02 AM
 

PointOfLaw Forum said:

In writing about the Ledbetter "fair pay" legislation to be considered in the U.S. Senate tomorrow, we neglected to link to a good analysis of the bill that Ted Frank wrote for NPR's "Talking Justice" blog last February. His conclusion:Employers...

April 22, 2008 11:41 AM
 

PointOfLaw Forum said:

Slate's Eric Posner provides a devastating rebuttal to the overwrought claims of Dahlia Lithwick about the misnamed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. He leaves out an important argument, which I noted for the Justice Talking blog: existing law, the Equal..

April 28, 2008 10:47 AM
 

PointOfLaw Forum said:

Today is Women's Equality Day, one of the scores of observances that prompt a presidential proclamation and various didactic exercises among the political class. (e.g. an Emilys List gala reception in Denver.) Democrats are also highlighting the day thematically

August 26, 2008 10:02 AM
 

PointOfLaw Forum said:

(Note: Dan Schwartz takes on the Ledbetter speech and issues at Walter Olson's other website, Overlawyered, here. The light that shines, the better....) Today is Women's Equality Day, the kind of observance that prompts a presidential proclamation and

August 26, 2008 10:50 AM
Anonymous comments are disabled. Click "Join" at top-right to add comments.

Closed to Comments

Note: Justice Talking ceased production on June 30 of 2008. The Talking Justice blogs and forums are provided as a read-only resource for historical interest only. Commenting on blog posts has been suspended.

All opinions expressed are those of the author. The Annenberg Public Policy Center makes no claim as the the accuracy of claims or continued availability of any third party web links found on this site.

This Blog

Select Blog by Day

Syndication