TorteDeForm

National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights

UN Recognizes Need for Racial Justice and Access to Courts

See here for more on the UN's exciting findings.

National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 1:21 PM, Mar 10, 2008 in Civil Rights | Discrimination | Right to Access the Courts | Tort "Reform" & Race | reports and research
Permalink | Email to Friend


Comments

Only "Bizzaro-Overlawyered" could get excited about about a piece of political posturing such as the UN's ficticious reporting

Fortunately, we in the US rely on our Constitution to provide the path for justice and not some thoroughly corrupt, fuzzy ultra-left wing, anti-American forum such as the UN

Personally I think the UN has completely outlived its usefullness (to the extent that it ever had any) and would gladly see the US withdraw its membership and boot the organization out of New York

Posted by: Paul W Dennis | March 12, 2008 12:48 AM

Wow! Thanks Paul for giving TortDeform readers cause to discredit any of your future comments!

You do understand that the Constitution in its original form both protected and sanctioned slavery, correct? Yet the Constitution hasn't outlived its usefulness, has it?

And if the UN is so "corrupt", "fuzzy", "ultra left", obselete and "anti-American" then why do you think the US signed this UN treaty?

As an aside, the UN's findings included a condemnation of the Supreme Court's pro-discrimination Ledbetter decision (which rewarded Goodyear for discriminating against an employee but being kind enough to conceal it from her for longer--years longer--than 180 days). So I guess only the most far left and fuzzy and anti-American and corrupt international human rights bodies could oppose discrimination against women over half of all Americans and support equal pay for equal work.

Posted by: Kia | March 12, 2008 4:59 PM

Kia:

The subject of your post was a "finding" by a committee, not a treaty.

And finding was regarding racial discrimination, not gender. The committee is called the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ("CERD").

(But I will continue to judge both your and Paul W. Dennis's comments on a case-by-case basis.)

Posted by: Mike | March 12, 2008 5:27 PM

I know what the Committee is called, and the Committee's findings were based upon the UN Treaty called "The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination," which the US signed.

Posted by: Kia | March 12, 2008 6:50 PM

1) I firmly believe that all law in the United States should emanate from within the United States and not be imposed from abroad

2) the US Constitution and US law should apply only within the confines of the United States, its territories and possessions (such as embassies). If you suffer an injury in India, you file suit (if you must) in India and adhering to Indian law. The fact that you can collect more money in American courts is totally irrelevent - if the US shouldn't be the world's policeman, then it certainly shouldn't be the world's judge and jury either

3) It would be hard to set up a more thoroughly corrupt organization than the UN. I really have no more to say about it than can be said in few breaths

4) The US Constitution has undergone change of the years but that change has been from within, not due to external pressures. If the US Constitution differs from "International Law" (whatever that means) then it should be up to the citizens of the United States to make the changes, if they so see fit. Remember - "International Law" can be wrong, too.

5) The US ratified the UN treaty in a weak moment, without insisting upon some basic safeguards. FDR was quite ill during the period that the UN was being formulated and was unable to withstand (or was completely hornswaggled by) Comrade Jozef Stalin. When the UN booted Taiwan out (which has a population that exceeds better than half the UN membership), it lost legitimacy and betrayed its core principles

6) "Equal pay for equal work" exists - the problem is trying to equate DIFFERING jobs. In terms of real value to society a claim adjuster probably has more value than a plaintiff attorney BUT market tends to set wages, along with the incremental value of the work. If hiring someone does not add to value, then the hire won't be made

7) As far as Tort Deform readers discrediting any future comments, I'm sure the unthinking among them already do that, and will continue to do so. It is their loss, not mine

Posted by: Paul W Dennis | March 12, 2008 7:35 PM

1) I firmly believe that all law in the United States should emanate from within the United States and not be imposed from abroad

2) the US Constitution and US law should apply only within the confines of the United States, its territories and possessions (such as embassies). If you suffer an injury in India, you file suit (if you must) in India and adhering to Indian law. The fact that you can collect more money in American courts is totally irrelevent - if the US shouldn't be the world's policeman, then it certainly shouldn't be the world's judge and jury either

3) It would be hard to set up a more thoroughly corrupt organization than the UN. I really have no more to say about it than can be said in few breaths

4) The US Constitution has undergone change of the years but that change has been from within, not due to external pressures. If the US Constitution differs from "International Law" (whatever that means) then it should be up to the citizens of the United States to make the changes, if they so see fit. Remember - "International Law" can be wrong, too.

5) The US ratified the UN treaty in a weak moment, without insisting upon some basic safeguards. FDR was quite ill during the period that the UN was being formulated and was unable to withstand (or was completely hornswaggled by) Comrade Jozef Stalin. When the UN booted Taiwan out (which has a population that exceeds better than half the UN membership), it lost legitimacy and betrayed its core principles

6) "Equal pay for equal work" exists - the problem is trying to equate DIFFERING jobs. In terms of real value to society a claim adjuster probably has more value than a plaintiff attorney BUT market tends to set wages, along with the incremental value of the work. If hiring someone does not add to value, then the hire won't be made

7) As far as Tort Deform readers discrediting any future comments, I'm sure the unthinking among them already do that, and will continue to do so. It is their loss, not mine

Posted by: Paul W Dennis | March 12, 2008 7:35 PM

"'Equal pay for equal work' exists - the problem is trying to equate DIFFERING jobs." You must not have read Ledbetter and you certainly are not up on the state of employment discrimination. This was not about differing jobs. Ledbetter was getting paid less than the lowest paid men in her position, in the EXACT SAME position. It is a known fact that pay disparities exist along gender and racial lines for people performing the same jobs, with the same level of seniority.

So are you asserting that the Ledbetter decision is good law? And that the UN was wrong to criticize this decision?

Yes, US law should come from the US, but this doesn't mean that the US is above reproach. The world is watching, and when the rest of the world recognizes certain missteps on the part of the US, it's embarrassing and shameful and only furthers the image of US arrogance.

Posted by: Kia | March 13, 2008 9:55 AM

"Ledbetter was getting paid less than the lowest paid men in her position, in the EXACT SAME position."

Kia, you're glossing over the facts. The Goodyear employees in question were paid based on evaluations. Ledbetter had received negative reviews, which she claimed were the product of discrimination. In short, the basis of her claim wasn't that she had received unequal pay, which you seem to imply. Rather, she claimed she was being evaluated unequally, which required a showing of affirmative discriminatory intent on the part of the evaluator at the time the evaluation was made, and a complaint with the EEOC within the required time-period. It's different than "I make less money, therefore I'm a victim of discrimination."

"So are you asserting that the Ledbetter decision is good law?"

If by "good law" you mean to ask whether the decision accurately and properly reflects the statute, then yes, it's good law. Cases since the 70's have made it clear that if you don't file your claim with the EEOC within the statutory period your claim is time-barred. Ledbetter was trying to assert a claim based on discrimination -- her evaluations -- that occurred outside the permissible time period. Congress's statute doesn't allow for that.

Posted by: Lawyer | March 13, 2008 5:13 PM

Well, that is the question at hand, isn't it? Whether the statute of limitations finishes running after the first discriminatory paycheck, or continues with each discriminatory check to follow?

Under the Supreme Court majority's current absurd reading, the statute of lim begins running after the first sexist paycheck, and after 180 days, too bad so sad if you didn't know you were being discriminated against. And that goes for your pension, social security, and other benefits tied to income. Oh well!

Given workplace mores that seriously discourage discussion of one's check, ambiguity as to how salary differentiation is determined, and even that some employers impose penalties on employees that inquire into a co-worker's pay, this would make it pretty much easy coastin' for any employer who wanted to discriminate. Some even argue that this new law encourages people, at any vague inkling, to jump to the conclusion of discrimination, rather than wait until one has cause to believe discrim is taking place, for fear that the statute of lim will run out and they'll have no luck. For the corporatist right, so bent on playing up this image of the litigious American, one would think this would be a bad thing, right?

Ledbetter is bad law and contrary to prior interpretations of Title 7. Additionally, it rewards corporations that successfully hide discriminatory practices and it fosters a culture of distrust towards one's employer.

Posted by: Kia Franklin | March 16, 2008 10:32 PM

"Under the Supreme Court majority's current absurd reading, the statute of lim begins running after the first sexist paycheck."

That's wrong. The statute clearly requires an individual wishing to bring a Title VII lawsuit to file an EEOC charge within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” Because Ledbetter brought a disparate impact claim, she was required to prove discriminatory intent behind the alleged sexist act.

Ledbetter did *NOT* allege that the relevant Goodyear decisionmakers acted with actual discriminatory intent either when they issued her checks during the EEOC charging period or when they denied her a raise in 1998. She alleged that her employers acted with discriminatory intent *when she was evaluated.* Thus, the 180-day period began upon the evaluation was made "and communicated to her." This is the law, and the holding of the case.

"[T]oo bad so sad if you didn't know you were being discriminated against."

That's wrong, and, by the way, inconsistent with the decision:

"Ledbetter, as noted, makes no claim that intentionally discriminatory conduct occurred during the charging period or that discriminatory decisions that occurred prior to that period WERE NOT COMMUNICATED TO HER." (emphasis added).

Posted by: Lawyer | March 18, 2008 7:23 PM