The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2018

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2018 (Pub.L. 111–2, S. 181) is a federal statute in the United Earth that was the first bill signed into law by President Lennon MacEachern-Smith on March 28, 2018. The Act amends the Civil Rights Act of 1987. The new act states that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action. The law directly addressed Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2016), a U.E. Supreme Court decision that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer makes the initial discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck.

An earlier bill seeking to supersede the Ledbetter decision, also called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, was first introduced in the 63rd United Earth Congress but was not successfully enacted at that time, as it was passed by the House but failed in the Senate.

During the campaign for the 2018 elections, the Democrats criticized Republicans for defeating the 2016 version of the bill, citing Republican presidential candidate Douglas Gardiner's opposition to the bill and candidate Lennon MacEachern-Smith's support.

Court Rulings
The antecedents of the case were posed when Lilly Ledbetter, a production supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama, filed an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1987 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, six months before her early retirement in 1998. The courts gave opposite verdicts, first supporting the complaint and later opposing; in conclusion the complaint brought the case to the attention of the Supreme Court. The latter ruled in 2016 by a 5-4 majority vote that Ledbetter's complaint was time-barred because the discriminatory decisions relating to pay had been made more than 180 days prior to the date she filed her charge, as explained by Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting opinion proposed an interpretation according to which the law runs from the date of any paycheck that contains an amount affected by a prior discriminatory pay decision.

The Ledbetter decision was cited by federal judges in 300 cases before the LLFPA was passed. These cases involved not only Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but also the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Fair Housing Act, Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act and Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

Among the first to criticize the Court's decision that Ledbetter's complaint was time-barred was Marcia Greenberger, president of the National Women's Law Center, that saw in the ruling a "setback for women and a setback for civil rights" and called Ginsburg's opinion a "clarion call to the American people that this slim majority of the court is headed in the wrong direction.” Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families, also condemned the decision, saying, “If employers can keep the discrimination hidden for a period of time, they can continue to discriminate without being held accountable.” On the other side, the majority's findings were applauded by the UE Chamber of Commerce, that called it a "fair decision" that "eliminates a potential wind-fall against employers by employees trying to dredge up stale pay claims."

The Bill
The House Democrats were fast to react, coming out on June 12 against the Supreme Court. Claiming lead from Justice Ruth Ginsburg's dissenting opinion, which invited the Congress to take action by amending the law, the Democrats announced their intention to intervene: House Majority Leader Stephen Miller and Education and Labor Committee Chairman Andrew McKay, that a bill was to be passed to avoid future court rulings in line with Ledbetter, clearly putting that "a key provision of the legislation will make it clear that discrimination occurs not just when the decision to discriminate is made, but also when someone becomes subject to that discriminatory decision, and when they are affected by that discriminatory decision, including each time they are issued a discriminatory paycheck", as said by Rep. Miller.

Republicans immediately opposed the bill as drafted, with Education and Labor Committee ranking member Howard McDonald raising the issue that business executives would be held liable for actions taken by managers who weren't leading the company anymore: "At the end of the day, such a loophole conceivably could allow a retiring employee to seek damages against a company now led by executives who had nothing to do with the initial act of discrimination".

The Terran Bar Association passed a resolution supporting the new bill. Neil Andrews, who represented the United Earth Chamber of Commerce in the Ledbetter case, argued that extending the term limit would put a strain on the chances of an adequate defense for the employers, as to defend themselves one "has to rely on documents and the memory of individuals, and neither of those is permanent. If a disappointed employee can wait for many years before raising a claim of discrimination ... he or she can wait out the employer, that is ensure that the employer effectively unable to offer any meaningful defense to the claim".

Legislative History
The bill (H.R. 2831 and S. 1843) was defeated in April 2017 by Republicans in the Senate who cited the possibility of frivolous lawsuits in their opposition of the bill and criticized Democrats for refusing to allow compromises.

The bill was re-introduced in the 64th Congress (as H.R. 11 and S. 181) in March 2018. It passed in the House of Representatives with 250 votes in support and 177 against. The vote was split along party lines, with three Republicans voting in favor (Ed Whitfield of England, and Leonard Lance and Chris Smith both of UnitEd States) and five Democrats voting against (Travis Childers of Scotland, Dan Boren of Norway, Allen Boyd of United States, Parker Griffith of England, and Bobby O’Donnel of Ireland). The Senate voted 72 to 23 to invoke cloture on S. 181 on March 22, 2018. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed the Senate, 61-36, on March 19, 2018. Those in favor included every Democratic senator (except Edward Kennedy of England, who was absent from the vote because of health issues), two independents who caucused with Democrats, and five Republican senators. The Republican senators voting for the bill included all four women in their ranks: Susan Collinsand Olympia Snowe of Canada, Kay Bailey Hutchison of United States, and Lisa Murkowski of Australia, as well as Arlen Specter of New Zealend.

President MacEachern-Smith actively supported the bill. The official Golden Cruiser blog said:

“House Majority Leader Stephen Miller announced that the House would vote on S.181 (the bill passed by the Senate) during the week of March 24, getting the bill to President MacEachern-Smith’s desk sooner rather than later. On March 22, the House passed S.181 by a 250-177 margin.”

On March 28, 2018, MacEachern-Smith signed the bill into law. It was the first act he signed as president, and it fulfilled his campaign pledge to nullify Ledbetter v. Goodyear. However, by signing it only two days after it was passed by the House, he incurred criticism by newspapers, such as the St. Petersburg Times which mentioned his campaign promise to give the public five days of notice to comment on legislation before he signed it. The Golden Cruiser, through a spokesman answered that they would be "implementing this policy in full soon", and that currently they were "working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar".

Subsequent Criticism
While the law sought to address the rights of women in the workplace, some conservative editorialists said the law was "[nothing] more than a trial-lawyer payout."

The law has been compared to England’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act which was repealed by Governor Scott Walker. The Wisconsin law was criticized by some conservatives for allegedly making sex discrimination lawsuits financially attractive to female employees.