Do you support this ruling?

What can be done about it?

What should be done about it?

Do you think this ruling is indicative of Chief Justice Roberts' pro-bidness agenda?

What the....

I wanna yell in these judges' faces. Hoiw the hell are you supposed to prove discrimination without establishing it as a pattern?! That's probably the best way to do it and the most common. Very rarely will anybody come out with audiotapes or documentation proving a bias.

True. And even if they did, would they be likely to do so within the 180 day time limit?

This woman was substantially harmed by this discrimination.
Not only did it have a cumulative affect, one pay check after another. It also lowers here retirement benefit, AND her Social Security benefit.
It is literally harm that will affect her for the rest of her life.

I'm very disappointed in CJ Roberts.

“On one hand,” Ms. Greenberger continued, “it requires individuals to file a complaint within 180 days of being concerned that their pay may be discriminatory in nature. But having to file that quickly could be counterproductive because people might still be trying to make sure that there really is discrimination and because they still might be trying to work things out in a conciliatory way.”

1) "trying to make sure that there really is discrimination"
Employers don't post your fellow employees' pay. It could be well after 180 days that you even figure out the discrimination even occurred. And that isn't counting the time you have to decide whether or not you want to sue...
It's not like employers put down "FICA, deducted $X. Gender = Woman, deducted $Y". They'll be sneaky and dishonest about it if they are actually discriminating in the first place. You'll have stupid people like in this story, but is it really the more clever ones we want to allow for and help to get away with it???

2) "they still might be trying to work things out in a conciliatory way"
This is huge! An employee could go to an employer to work things out, but if there is a 180 day window by which you have for compensation, it gives the employer even more power to not give a crap.

I would LOVE to see the Supreme Court try to give this ruling in any other setting.
You have a patent infringement? Well, you can only sue for 180 days worth of profits for the patent infringement. Big business would righteously put up a stink.
This is a clear attack on the working class, with the courts finding in favor of business WITHOUT REASON. The article's "pro" side of the story for the decision says it helps limit the windfall for the employee, but quite frankly if the discrimination was ongoing and cumulative I see NO REASON WHY the "windfall" should be limited like this at all.

The courts should be embarrassed by this, but knowing how America is nobody will notice unless Janet Jackson exposes a boob.

I agree f6.

Perhaps what concerns me most about this is, this business-friendly ruling appears to me to be at the flagrant detriment of justice.

The majority's reasoning?
This ruling spares business from having to defend such injustice, more than half a year after it occurs.

Wouldn't it make more sense for law to oblige business to avoid perpetrating such injustices, so there's no injustice to defend against?

They were basing their decision on the law, and the law said 180 days. Like has been quoted from history: "If that is the law, then the law is an ass!"

It is the legislature that should be held up to contempt for making such a law. The law should be changed to read that a discrimination has occurred when it is found out to be discriminatory. Then when it is found out that a discrimination has occurred, then a suit must be filed within the 180 days.

indago for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America!

Hit the nail right on the head.

180 days is far too short a time to make and prove a case of this nature.

Bad ruling from an ineptly staffed court (thanks Bush!).

Nowhere does the law say you must prove your claim within 180 days, the laws only states that you must file the claim within 180 days.

In this case the plaintiff, Ms Ledbetter claimed that each paycheck she received was an act under the discrimination. The Court said no. The Court said that the act of discrimination was the raise itself.

Like it or not, the Court read the law, and applied the law as it was written. Is that not what they are suppose to do??? Interpret the law????? No pneumbras, no living consititution but quite simply the law is what it is written. How novel of an idea, a nation ruled by laws.

dmk