Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
What does the first question have to do with the second? Nothing. You can't make a trend out of two data points. Perhaps instead of trying to infer a basis for your position from such a limited dataset you could find some direct evidence that a significant number of small businesses are currently suffering from erroneous pay discrimination claims.
What would happen under the proposed legislation? Presumably, a person would be able to receive the money they were due if they could prove in a court of law that they had experienced wage discrimination, but failed to file a claim within the standard statute of limitations.
Your position seems to be: I don't want to allow legitimate legal recourse to people who have been subject to wage discrimination because I am afraid that there might be some people who file erroneous claims. Seems like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Where does the law you cited have anything relevant to say about claims made after employment has ended? I'm fairly certain that all it does is provide a de facto extension of the statute of limitations if wage discrimination persists beyond the end of the initial statute of limitations. I think you're swinging at phantoms here.
|
In the bill cited a person would be entitled to two years of back pay outside of the charge filing period.
People currently have legitimate legal recourse. But, my position is that I think people should make attempts to resolve problems while the problems can be resolved. For example if a female is coaching a female college volleyball team and is being paid $30,000, and a male is coaching a male college volleyball team and is being paid $40,000 and the salaries are public. I personally would want the female to make a claim with the administration at a time when the administration can do something, not for example after she retires or gets fired. In some cases the discrepancy can be willful, in other cases the discrepancy might be an oversight. If the discrepancy is willful and the complaint is ignored, I would be the first one to support, nominal compensatory and punitive damages.
I think the general trend for legitimate pay discrimination is positive (less of it) and I think with increased awareness of the issue with proactive action the number of formal complaints should be going down. Given what I think, I would not support legislation intended to change those trends when there is no underlying need to. Perhaps, trial attorneys don't agree, and certainly Obama does not agree.
-----Added 22/10/2008 at 04 : 27 : 04-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
why are you talking about punitive damages?
did you mean something else? because punitive damages are not for compensation of the harm done, but rather damages meant to elicit changes in behavior.
For example, let's say my cell company regulary jacks people around on their bills. I sue for $300 (the excess charges) in damages and 1 million dollars in punitive damages. The million is simply to make my cell phone company think twice before jacking people's bills anymore, not on the basis of any real damages I've incurred from them.
|
Depending on the circumstances a court may award punitive damages.
-----Added 22/10/2008 at 04 : 36 : 33-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by asaris
Actually, Ace, the Supreme Court has consistently held, over and over again, that statistics alone cannot prove employment discrimination. (Interesting side note: I met my girlfriend in my Employment Discrimination class. Hi Sweetie!)
|
Statistics play an important role in making a case, especially in large organizations. If an employer can prove away the statistical variance with reasons other than sex, the employer should win.
Quote:
|
And the issue isn't the timeframe for filing suit as such. It's whether or not the time should toll until such a time as the employee knew or should have known about the disparity. That's all.
|
Would you be comfortable with going back 25 years, 50 years? Would you allow a grandchild to sue on behalf of a dead grandmother? A corporate entity may not have an expiration date, would you allow class action lawsuits against companies dating back to their inception dates? I am not a lawyer and I don't know what should be reasonable, that is why I ask the question. And the question is intended to paint you or whoever answers it into a corner. At some point reasonable people would draw a line, McCain drew his so to speak, and at that point Obama makes the claim that McCain is against equal pay. I would guess the same could be said for anyone who would impose any restrictions regarding a woman's right to recover. Do you think Obama's claim against McCain is fair?