In a letter to their members, SHRM voiced their opposition to several bills being debated in the House titled the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Ledbetter Fair Pay act. Acting as an update to the existing Equal Pay Act, the bills would create new mandates for employers as well as making it easier to suit for punitive damages. As a result of the nature of the bill, SHRM sent out a message urging members to contact their representatives to vote no based on the information below:
The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – would eliminate the statutory time limit for filing pay discrimination claims.
The Paycheck Fairness Act – would prohibit an employer’s ability to justify paying different salaries to workers based in different geographic locations.
The House is scheduled to vote on both the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act by the end of this week. SHRM is urging members to let your Representative know today that these bills go far beyond reasonable, balanced approaches to address wage discrimination.
Background
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11) – The Ledbetter legislation is a congressional response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. In that case, the Court held that the 300-day time limit for filing a charge Title VII of the Civil Rights Act starts after the alleged unlawful employment action, and does not re-start a new upon receipt of each successive paycheck
The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would effectively eliminate the uniform statue of limitations on pay discrimination claims and restart the time clock for filing such a charge with the EEOC upon the receipt of each successive paycheck. The bill would also re-start the time clock when a retiree receives an annuity check from an employer, and would thus keep employers liable to a discrimination claim potentially decades after an alleged act of misconduct. The legislation would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.
Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 12) – The Paycheck Fairness Act would amend the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which requires that jobs requiring comparable functions, skills, effort and responsibility in similar working conditions must compensate equally. Some stakeholders contend that the Equal Pay Act is not sufficient to remedy wage discrimination. While wage differentials remains an important workplace issue, debate continues over whether the differential is attributable to discrimination or the result of legitimate pay practices such as education, skill, experience, or tenure.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would limit an employer’s ability to justify paying different salaries to workers based in different locations with different costs of living. Second, the bill would lift the caps on compensatory or punitive damages for which employers would be liable, in addition to current liability for back pay. These damage penalties would apply to even unintentional pay disparities.
SHRM’s Position
SHRM adamantly opposes discrimination based on gender and believes any intentional misconduct against an employee should be promptly addressed and resolved. We also recognize that some court decisions have narrowed the scope of pay discrimination protections. As a result, we believe that it is appropriate and necessary for Congress to re-examine pay discrimination laws to determine if changes may be needed to restore protection under the law. However, SHRM opposes any efforts to eliminate the statute of limitations for filing claims or to limit legitimate employer pay practices. As a result, SHRM is opposed to both the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act.
For more information on this bill visit GovTrack or the SHRM website.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f8137eed-7c42-4d3c-b987-e7fae1ef39ef)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1c84d48d-6248-4209-8cfb-b836413ca9a8)