Signs the SCOTUS is politically motivated?

[cosmosdan]

I read this article in the NYT about the recent supreme court decision. I also heard about it on NPR yesterday. What alarms me is

The dissenters said the ruling ignored workplace realities.

and this

Many such cases are likely to be barred by the court’s interpretation of the requirement in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that employees make their charge within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”

that seems to confirm it.

In watching the Bush admin it appears they are actively tying to rearrange the power structure by having more influence in the judicial and in the media. Call me an alarmist or conspiracy nut if you will but this decision seems to favor the money rather than the citizen.
In some cases the individual is required to negotiate for their own salary and if you haven’t asked for X amount then don’t cry discrimination because others have. If however the company has certain pay practices that clearly show discrimination then the person being discriminated against shouldn’t have their hands tied by an unfair interpretation of the law.

Is this the kind of thing we can expect to see more of in the future as those with money make sure they stay in control?

[John_Mace]

@cosmosdan

In watching the Bush admin it appears they are actively tying to rearrange the power structure by having more influence in the judicial and in the media.

Not sure where you got the “in the media” part from this case, but as for the courts-- I guess it depends on how you look at it. It was Congress who wrote the 180 day provision into the law, and they can (and probably will) rewrite the law to make it clear. Congress always had the ability to do this, and they still do. How does this give the court more power? Seems like it gives the court less power, since it throws the issue back to Congress (where it belongs).

[Agent_Foxtrot]

@John Mace

Not sure where you got the “in the media” part from this case, but as for the courts-- I guess it depends on how you look at it. It was Congress who wrote the 180 day provision into the law, and they can (and probably will) rewrite the law to make it clear. Congress always had the ability to do this, and they still do. How does this give the court more power? Seems like it gives the court less power, since it throws the issue back to Congress (where it belongs).

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the spark of rationality and common sense on our shoulder, like that little voice that tells us not to drive after our fifth mojito. Congress makes stupid laws, and the Supreme Court shoots them down. Checks and balances.

I can easily blame Congress for passing the 180 measure in the first place, but I more blame the Supreme Court for upholding it.
Adam

[Martin_Hyde]

It’s nearly universal that when the court is predominantly conservative, liberals think it is politically motivated, when it is predominantly liberal, conservatives think it is politically motivated. This is not remotely a new idea and the SCOTUS has been pretty controversial since the 19th century.

There are many cases throughout the history of the SCOTUS where you have to wonder if the court ruled out of a genuine interpretation of the law or out of political motivations. Ultimately no one case is a “sign that the SCOTUS is politically motivated” at least not to me, especially not a case like this where all the SCOTUS really did was choose to read a specific time-limit already written into a statute in a manner that was different from how the EEOC had interpreted it. The EEOC is an organization within the government which is extremely liberal in its interpretations of statute whenever those interpretations serve the interests of its protected classes.

As it is, SCOTUS terms are life-long, there are 9 members on the court, and they have to face senatorial confirmation for the very purpose of trying to get a diverse set of thinkers on the bench. By and large I think the court has been relatively balanced for many years, with slight tilts one way or another. Many jurists who are appointed and expected to be conservative or liberal prove to have distinct views that don’t fit nicely and neatly into our predefined conceptions. By and large I’ve seen a great willingness in most SCOTUS members past and present to be individuals, and while no one is going to agree with any of the individual SCOTUS members all of the time, even some of the ones who are far on the other side of the political spectrum tend to surprise people nonetheless. I think the SCOTUS, with the problems it does have, is ultimately fairly interested in coming to decisions which correctly interpret the law and the constitution.

[John_Mace]

@Agent Foxtrot

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the spark of rationality and common sense on our shoulder, like that little voice that tells us not to drive after our fifth mojito. Congress makes stupid laws, and the Supreme Court shoots them down. Checks and balances.

It is? Can you produce a cite, preferably from the constitution, that backs that up?

I can easily blame Congress for passing the 180 measure in the first place, but I more blame the Supreme Court for upholding it.

On what constitutional basis would they strike it down?

[Martin_Hyde]

@John Mace

On what constitutional basis would they strike it down?

I can’t imagine one, certainly not a constitutional reason (and any other reason would be inappropriate for the SCOTUS to strike down legislation.)

This 180 day limit isn’t exactly new, it’s just being interpreted in a new way, it’s been on the books for something like 30 years.

[Agent_Foxtrot]

@John Mace

It is? Can you produce a cite, preferably from the constitution, that backs that up?

I’m meeting Mom for sushi in 45 minutes, but I’ll be happy to find a cite later today.
Adam

[John_Mace]

@Agent Foxtrot

I’m meeting Mom for sushi in 45 minutes, but I’ll be happy to find a cite later today.

Just to be clear… you’re supposed to prove that the SCOTUS is charged with striking down “stupid” laws. I’ll eagerly await that cite.

[cosmosdan]

@John Mace

Not sure where you got the “in the media” part from this case, but as for the courts-- I guess it depends on how you look at it. It was Congress who wrote the 180 day provision into the law, and they can (and probably will) rewrite the law to make it clear. Congress always had the ability to do this, and they still do. How does this give the court more power? Seems like it gives the court less power, since it throws the issue back to Congress (where it belongs).

Correction. The Supreme court* interpreted * a clause.

Many such cases are likely to be barred by the court’s interpretation of the requirement in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that employees make their charge within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”

Does that mean when the person was hired and salary was set or could it mean years later while the discrepancy was still taking place? When exactly did the practice occur. IMHO and it seems in the opinion of the dissenting justices, if the practice is still going on then it is still occurring and still within the limits of said clause. The workplace realities they mentioned are that the employees are not always aware of salary discrepancies since it is SOP for most companies to withhold this information.

It is the court’s specific interpretation of the clause that I am questioning since they could have gone the other way and several justices did.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Certainly the Court took a lot of flak in Bush v. Gore, when all of the justices in the 5-4 majority were Republican appointees (yes, I know that Souter and Stevens, in the minority, were too), and when Sandra Day O’Connor had been seen, according to Newsweek, to be very distressed at an Election Night party in reaction to the (premature) news that Gore had won the Presidency. Then its eventual decision was per curiam, relied on an equal-protection analysis the majority had previously steered clear of, and was explicitly said to have no precedential value. WTF?

That said, I agree with Martin Hyde that, far more often than not, the Court tries to rule fairly and impartially. Suspecting it of political motivations is nothing new. The controversies over Dred Scott and Brown v. Board of Education were quite heated, too, back in the day. I’ve read pretty widely on the Supreme Court in history and today. Overall, I think the justices are keenly aware of the important institutional role of the court, mindful that they are unelected, life-term judges in a great republic, and confident that history will make the final judgment.

[cosmosdan]

@Martin Hyde

It’s nearly universal that when the court is predominantly conservative, liberals think it is politically motivated, when it is predominantly liberal, conservatives think it is politically motivated. This is not remotely a new idea and the SCOTUS has been pretty controversial since the 19th century.

There are many cases throughout the history of the SCOTUS where you have to wonder if the court ruled out of a genuine interpretation of the law or out of political motivations. Ultimately no one case is a “sign that the SCOTUS is politically motivated” at least not to me, especially not a case like this where all the SCOTUS really did was choose to read a specific time-limit already written into a statute in a manner that was different from how the EEOC had interpreted it. The EEOC is an organization within the government which is extremely liberal in its interpretations of statute whenever those interpretations serve the interests of its protected classes.

As it is, SCOTUS terms are life-long, there are 9 members on the court, and they have to face senatorial confirmation for the very purpose of trying to get a diverse set of thinkers on the bench. By and large I think the court has been relatively balanced for many years, with slight tilts one way or another. Many jurists who are appointed and expected to be conservative or liberal prove to have distinct views that don’t fit nicely and neatly into our predefined conceptions. By and large I’ve seen a great willingness in most SCOTUS members past and present to be individuals, and while no one is going to agree with any of the individual SCOTUS members all of the time, even some of the ones who are far on the other side of the political spectrum tend to surprise people nonetheless. I think the SCOTUS, with the problems it does have, is ultimately fairly interested in coming to decisions which correctly interpret the law and the constitution.

I agree with you that one case is a long way from conclusive. I’d also say that business owners have a right to be protected as much as any other citizen. We are far to litigious a society. Still, I don’t see any rational logical purpose of this interpretation. If the discrepancy was still occurring why wouldn’t the employee have a right to a day in court? There are statutes of limitations on crimes for a reason but if the crime is ongoing the limitation doesn’t apply. Isn’t that right?

[John_Mace]

I haven’t had time to read the whole decision yet-- just what I saw on the news last night, and in the paper today. Roberts and the others in the majority decision are apt to interpret the law very narrowly, whereas those on the other side are more likely to interpret it more loosely. I don’t see that as a political decision, but as one of legal philosophy. RBG said, in her dissenting opinion that the majority’s decision was a “parsimonious” interpretation of the law. If you strip away the negative context of that word, it really just means the interpretation must supported by the evidence available. Frankly, I think that’s what the court should do.

[Algher]

The Court is always political, in that it decides on political matters. Give the way the court is described (often innacurately) regarding its 5/4 split, we can assume that some decisions are “political.”

However, those politics are better played if you decide that “original intent” is conservative/right, and “living” is liberal/left.

For this case, the key question IMHO is wrapped up here: “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”

The Court seems to argue that the practice is on setting the salary, not with each subsequent paycheck. If the Democratically controlled Congress does not like this, they can change it. If it is such a slam dunk, then they can overcome a Bush veto.

However, opening the doors to never ending discrimination lawsuits with no timeline might not be the best thing for business in America. We do NOT pay everyone the same. All candidates are NOT equal. All jobs are NOT equal, even if they are in the same pay grade. We have had threads in the past that discussed why women get paid less, for example. The larger issues are that women drop out of the workforce, and that women do not ASK for more money.

However, sometimes people do not know that they are underpaid compared to peers. Sometimes, however, they do:

I work in education, specifically working for the State of California. My pay, and the pay of all of my staff, and the pay of all of the faculty - is public record. You can request my pay level. My staff regularly request the pay level of their peers during annual review time. They then typically find out that I pay better than most other departments on the campus, and they are happy.

I worked long ago for a firm where everyone had a billing rate, and that rate was a function of salary. Once I started running projects, I learned how much more others made when I put together invoices. I used that in salary negotiations. A female peer did not - she did not want to rock the boat.

Should we make all salaries at the firm open data?

Finally (then I need more coffee): Perhaps Congress was trying to put a cap on never ending lawsuits by saying that if you have an issue, you have to bring it up immediately. If not, we would find GM being sued for hiring decisions made in 1973.

[Martin_Hyde]

@cosmosdan

I agree with you that one case is a long way from conclusive. I’d also say that business owners have a right to be protected as much as any other citizen. We are far to litigious a society. Still, I don’t see any rational logical purpose of this interpretation. If the discrepancy was still occurring why wouldn’t the employee have a right to a day in court? There are statutes of limitations on crimes for a reason but if the crime is ongoing the limitation doesn’t apply. Isn’t that right?

There’s actually another statute out there that would still give employees their day in court if they miss the 180 day deadline, the Equal Pay Act has no deadline, and you could still get full compensatory damages (ie all of the pay you should have made.) The key difference is, that statute doesn’t allow punitive damages so your lawyers won’t get a nice fat contingency fee which is probably a big part of why this woman in particular didn’t pursue her options under that legislation very far (she did pursue it somewhat, as the NYT article states.)

I can understand the reason for there being some sort of deadline, although I’m not really sure 180 days from the moment the pay level has been set is entirely the right deadline. I don’t think I view each individual pay check as a separate act of discrimination, I would view any subsequent raises which were inequal as new acts of discrimination, however.

[John_Mace]

@Martin Hyde

There’s actually another statute out there that would still give employees their day in court if they miss the 180 day deadline, the Equal Pay Act has no deadline, and you could still get full compensatory damages (ie all of the pay you should have made.) The key difference is, that statute doesn’t allow punitive damages so your lawyers won’t get a nice fat contingency fee which is probably a big part of why this woman in particular didn’t pursue her options under that legislation very far (she did pursue it somewhat, as the NYT article states.)

And I wonder why Ms. Ledbetter’s attorneys didn’t advise her to sue under that act?

I can understand the reason for there being some sort of deadline, although I’m not really sure 180 days from the moment the pay level has been set is entirely the right deadline. I don’t think I view each individual pay check as a separate act of discrimination, I would view any subsequent raises which were inequal as new acts of discrimination, however.

I agree. The paycheck itself is not a decision-- it’s generally just an automated process. A better argument would be that every minute the person worked for unequal pay is an act of discrimination. The issuance of a paycheck has no special significance, in my mind.

[cosmosdan]

@Algher

The Court is always political, in that it decides on political matters. Give the way the court is described (often innacurately) regarding its 5/4 split, we can assume that some decisions are “political.”

However, those politics are better played if you decide that “original intent” is conservative/right, and “living” is liberal/left.

For this case, the key question IMHO is wrapped up here: “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”

The Court seems to argue that the practice is on setting the salary, not with each subsequent paycheck. If the Democratically controlled Congress does not like this, they can change it. If it is such a slam dunk, then they can overcome a Bush veto.

However, opening the doors to never ending discrimination lawsuits with no timeline might not be the best thing for business in America. We do NOT pay everyone the same. All candidates are NOT equal. All jobs are NOT equal, even if they are in the same pay grade. We have had threads in the past that discussed why women get paid less, for example. The larger issues are that women drop out of the workforce, and that women do not ASK for more money.

However, sometimes people do not know that they are underpaid compared to peers. Sometimes, however, they do:

I work in education, specifically working for the State of California. My pay, and the pay of all of my staff, and the pay of all of the faculty - is public record. You can request my pay level. My staff regularly request the pay level of their peers during annual review time. They then typically find out that I pay better than most other departments on the campus, and they are happy.

I worked long ago for a firm where everyone had a billing rate, and that rate was a function of salary. Once I started running projects, I learned how much more others made when I put together invoices. I used that in salary negotiations. A female peer did not - she did not want to rock the boat.

Should we make all salaries at the firm open data?

Finally (then I need more coffee): Perhaps Congress was trying to put a cap on never ending lawsuits by saying that if you have an issue, you have to bring it up immediately. If not, we would find GM being sued for hiring decisions made in 1973.

I think you make some good points that I have considered. It’s not automatically discrimination just because of gender. There are other factors to consider. A time limit makes sense to me but it’s tricky to know how to set it. It seems to me if the discrimination is still going on and if discrimination can be proved, then 180 days from when salary is set seems punitive to the employee. Of course if you renegotiate every year you could also wait until negotiations to bring it up to your employer and/or your lawyer. They could also establish a limit of how many years you can go back {10?} when you sue, as they do in child support, since evidence of discrimination would be hard to come from 20 years ago.

[cosmosdan]

@Martin Hyde

There’s actually another statute out there that would still give employees their day in court if they miss the 180 day deadline, the Equal Pay Act has no deadline, and you could still get full compensatory damages (ie all of the pay you should have made.) The key difference is, that statute doesn’t allow punitive damages so your lawyers won’t get a nice fat contingency fee which is probably a big part of why this woman in particular didn’t pursue her options under that legislation very far (she did pursue it somewhat, as the NYT article states.)

I can understand the reason for there being some sort of deadline, although I’m not really sure 180 days from the moment the pay level has been set is entirely the right deadline. I don’t think I view each individual pay check as a separate act of discrimination, I would view any subsequent raises which were inequal as new acts of discrimination, however.

Thanks. Please ignore my comments in the pit thread. I will be responding here.

The Equal Pay Act is interesting. She can get her back pay, and IMHO if discrimination is proved the employer should pay legal fees as well, rather than punitive damages. Perhaps even a reasonable interest rate for money held. That might be a reasonable recourse.
I think the issue of when the act occurred depends on the situation. How often does the employee get to renegotiate for a raise? Have company guidelines been applied equally to all employees regardless of race or gender? If she became aware of the discrepancy then it’s up to her to present her grievance to the company and give them an opportunity to remedy the situation before any lawsuit.

[athelas]

It doesn’t rule the way you want it to.

[Honesty]

I think the ruling stinks. The Court is saying that this woman submit a petition asserting discrimination within 180 days of pay changes. How absurd. Ginsberg is correct when she says that this isn’t feasible because this sort of discrimination occurs in incremental steps not in one fell swoop.

The new SCOTUS must get these rulings from a toy scroll buried deep in a box of Cracker Jacks. Seriously, who thought of this? This interpretation of the Equal Pay Act gives a tacit nod to employers to continue discriminatory practices without fear of reprisal. The Constitution says “We the People” not “We the Corporations” or “We the Businesses”.

The Roberts Court will go down in history as abrogating Civil Rights for both women and minorities. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

• Honesty

[DSYoungEsq]

@Honesty

I think the ruling stinks. The Court is saying that this woman submit a petition asserting discrimination within 180 days of pay changes. How absurd. Ginsberg is correct when she says that this isn’t feasible because this sort of discrimination occurs in incremental steps not in one fell swoop.

The new SCOTUS must get these rulings from a toy scroll buried deep in a box of Cracker Jacks. Seriously, who thought of this? This interpretation of the Equal Pay Act gives a tacit nod to employers to continue discriminatory practices without fear of reprisal. The Constitution says “We the People” not “We the Corporations” or “We the Businesses”.

The Roberts Court will go down in history as abrogating Civil Rights for both women and minorities. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

• Honesty

What dreck. I’ll respond in full when I have a chance. But just because they majority does not accept that Congress’ language intends the result the minority does doesn’t mean anyone’s “civil rights” are being abrogated.

IF Congress intended something different, Congress can easily correct the situation by changing the law to clearly state so. The fact that the majority has interpreted language in a less expansive way than someone would like doesn’t make their opiniong come from “toy scrolls.” :rolleyes: