Presidenti Obama nënshkruan ligjin për pagesë të barabartë

Presidenti Barak Obama nënshkroi dje ligjin e parë, i cili më në fund do të bëjë të mundur pagim më të barabartë për punëtorët, duke ua bërë atyre më të lehtë të padisin punëdhënësin për praktika të padrejta pagimi. Sekretarja e Shtetit, Hillary Clinton, kryetarja e dhomës së përfaqësuesve, Nancy Pelosi, dhe Zonja e Parë e Amerikës, Mishele Obama ishin të pranishme në ceremoninë e nënshkrimit të ligjit, i cili e ka burimin tek një grua 70 vjeçare nga jugu i Amerikës.

Të pranishmit në dhomë pasqyronin faktin se sa përparim kanë bërë gratë amerikane për barazi me burrat në vendet e punës. Nancy Pelosi, gruaja e parë kryetare e Dhomës së Përfaqësuesve. Hillary Clinton, ish Zonja e Parë e Amerikës, që kandidoi për postin e presidentit dhe tani është Sekretare Shteti.

Por ylli i vërtetë ishte 70 vjeçarja nga shteti Alabama. Lilly Ledbetter punoi për gati 20 vjet si menaxhere në kompaninë Goodyear të gomave të makinave para se të mësonte se paguhej më pak sesa kolegu i saj mashkull.

“Gjatë gjithë karierës sime isha paguar më pak. Duhet të isha paguar më drejtë dhe më barabar për një punë të njëjtë”.

Ajo ngriti padi, por Gjykata e Lartë e Shteteve të Bashkuara e hodhi poshtë padinë e saj, duke thënë se ajo kishte pritur shumë kohë para se të paraqiste ankesën.

“Gjatë karierës së saj, ajo humbi më shumë se 200 mijë dollarë rrogë, por edhe më shumë po të llogaritet pensioni dhe përfitimet nga sigurimet shoqërore. Këto janë humbje që ajo i ndjen edhe sot”.

Ligji i ri, i nënshkruar dje nga presidenti Obama, u jep punëtorëve 6 muaj kohë pas çdo pagese me praktikë diskriminuese që të ngrenë padi. Analistët thonë se ligji i ri do të bëjë që punëdhënësit të jenë më të vetëdijshëm rreth dallimeve në pagesa. Statistikat tregojnë se gratë amerikane paguhen 78 cent për çdo dollarë që paguhen burrat.

Dallimi më i madh ekziston tek punëtoret e sektorit të shërbimeve, si  ato që punojnë në dyqane dhe restorante. Infermjeret, mësueset dhe punonjëset e sektorit shtetëror përjetojnë më pak dallim në këtë drejtim.

Zonja Ledbetter nuk do të përfitojë nga ligji i ri, por ajo thotë se shpërblimi më i mirë për të është drejtësia për brezat e ardhshëm.

“Vajzat dhe mbesat tuaja do të kenë një përvojë më të mirë. Kjo e bën me kaq vlerë betejën time, që duhet ta fitonim patjetër”. 

Zonja Ledbetter thotë se lufta e saj nuk merr fund me ligjin e ri. Kjo grua e fortë nga jugu do të vazhdojë luftën e saj për barazi gjinore.

5 Komente

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that employers are protected from lawsuits over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more.

This was a case of statutory rather than constitutional interpretation. The plaintiff in this case, Lilly Ledbetter, characterized her situation as one where "disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period." In rejecting Ledbetter's appeal, the Supreme Court said that "she could have, and should have, sued" when the pay decisions were made, instead of waiting beyond the 180-day statutory charging period. The effect of the Court's holding was reversed by the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009.

//
Background of the case

In 1979 Lilly Ledbetter, the plaintiff, began work at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in its Gadsden, Alabama location, a union plant. During her years at the factory as a salaried worker, raises were given and denied based on evaluations and recommendations regarding worker performance, as is typical. All merit increases had to be substantiated by a formal evaluation. In March 1998, Ledbetter inquired into the possible sexual discrimination of the Goodyear Tire Company. In July she filed formal charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In November 1998, after early retirement, Ledbetter sued claiming pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. She started with the same pay but by retirement, she was earning $3,727 per month compared to 15 men who earned from $4,286 per month (lowest paid man) to $5,236 per month (highest paid man).[1] The Supreme Court did not rule on whether this was discrimination, just the statute of limitations to sue.

[edit] Statutory provisions at issue

  • "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer… to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin...."[2]
  • "A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred."[3]
  • "it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation...provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."[4]

[edit] Lower court proceedings

The District Court found in favor of Goodyear on the Equal Pay Act claim, because that Act allows pay differences that are based on merit. The court allowed the Title VII and other claims to proceed to trial. Ledbetter claimed that she had been evaluated unfairly because of her gender and therefore had been paid significantly less than her male colleagues. Goodyear claimed their evaluations were non-discriminatory and only focused on worker competence. The jury found for Ledbetter and awarded back pay and damages. Goodyear appealed, arguing that all claims to damages before September 26, 1997 were void due to the statute of limitations placed on discrimination claims.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court's decision stating that Ledbetter could only sue for allegations regarding pay decisions that occurred less than 180 days before her beginning the EEOC process in March 1998. Ledbetter, as the court ruled, could not sue on decisions that merely affected pay in the 180 day period. Furthermore, all decisions made concerning pay in the 180 day period could not be unequivocally linked to her gender. Ledbetter sought a writ of certiorari, but did not contest the sufficiency of the evidence concerning decisions in the 180 day period. The Supreme Court granted the writ and heard the appeal.

[edit] The Supreme Court's decision

Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the court. The Court held that according to Title VII, discriminatory intent must occur during the 180-day charging period. Ledbetter did not claim that Goodyear acted with discriminatory intent in the charging period by issuing the checks, nor by denying her a raise in 1998. She argued that the discriminatory behavior occurred long before but still affected her during the 180-day charging period. Prior caselaw, the Court held, established that the actual intentional discrimination must occur within the charging period. The Court also stated that according to those prior cases, Ledbetter’s claim that each check is an act of discrimination is inconsistent with the statute, because there was no evidence of discriminatory intent in the issuing of the checks.

[edit] Ginsburg's dissent

Justice Ginsburg dissented from the opinion of the Court,[5] joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer. She argued against applying the 180-day limit to pay discrimination, because discrimination often occurs in small increments over large periods of time. Furthermore, the pay information of fellow workers is typically confidential and unavailable for comparison. Ginsburg argued that pay discrimination is inherently different from adverse actions, such as termination. Adverse actions are obvious, but small pay discrepancy is often difficult to recognize until more than 180 days of the pay change. Ginsburg argued that the broad remedial purpose of the statute was incompatible with the Court's "cramped" interpretation. Her dissent asserted that the employer had been, "Knowingly carrying past pay discrimination forward" during the 180-day charging period, and therefore could be held liable.

[edit] Reaction and subsequent legislation President Obama signs the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law on January 29, 2009; to his right is the new law’s namesake, Lilly Ledbetter Main article: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

In 2007, several Democratic members of Congress introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which revised the law to state that the 180-day statute of limitations for pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck. The bill became an issue in the 2008 Presidential election campaign, with Barack Obama supporting the bill,[6] and John McCain opposed to it.[7] The plaintiff in the case, Lilly Ledbetter, appeared in campaign ads for the Obama campaign and had a speaking role at the Democratic National Convention.

In January 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law.[8] With the revised statutory language, the majority opinion's interpretation is no longer valid, and the law now conforms to the interpretation advocated by Justice Ginsberg in her dissenting opinion.

E dini se kjo Lelaja pasi fitoj/humbi gjyqin u detyrua te dale ne pension te parakohshme se ata te Good Year Tire & Ruber e vune te punonte ne nje sektor ku i duheshe te ngrinte pesha te renda ( gomat e Hammer) njesoj is burrat. Rrogen e deshte si burrat atehere dhe punen ja dhane si burrat. Nuk e  bente dot dhe u largua.

Lejle, c'lidhje ka diskriminimi seksual me kete teme?  (Jo me pak i rendesishem, por s'e kuptova lidhjen.)

Ligji i ri i nenshkruar nga Obama nuk eshte tamam ligj qe detyron kompanite te paguajne njesoj pa dallim gjinor, por eshte ligj qe i jep mundesi grave te hedhin ne gjyq punedhenesin edhe pasi kane kaluar 180 dite (qe ishte ligji i vjeter.) 

Eshte me sakte presion ndaj kompanive qe ketej e tutje do jene nen rrezik te padive, te cilat mund te marrin edhe trajten e "class action lawsuit."

@ toko, me duket se nen ligjin e ri, behet fjale per te njejten pune, te njejten pagese, e jo sekretarja te paguhet njesoj me "peshe-ngritesit" ne te njejten kompani.

Gjithesesi, nje hap me perpara per barazi gjinore smiley

Monda, Ajo Leljaja prandaj paguhej me pak se nuk ngrinte dot peshat e renda.

Monda,

 e drejte verejtja...me vajti direkt mendja tek sexual harrasment....mosbarazia ne pagese, eshte teme paralel/lidhet me ngacmimin seksual. eshte ai mendimi nen ndergjegje: femrat jane vec per nje gje..te duken bukur, te veshin funde te shkurtra etc. Shiko Tokon...si i flet nen-ndergjegjja me flamur ne dore...se fsheh dot biasin e vet...nuk ka mashkull shqiptar ne bote qe mos ta kete kete bias. Ledbetter...kishte vite e vite qe bente ekzaktesisht te njejten pune qe benin meshkujt. Nejse...varja..

Supreme court u kap me nje gje teknike...statutory interpretation bs...legjislacioni/congress e vindikoi ceshtjen.

 

Për të komentuar tek Peshku pa ujë, ju duhet të identifikoheni ose të regjistroheni (regjistrimi është falas).