Tort reform

Don Jacobs

Contributor

0 CommentsPrint ArticleSubscribe

The first bill that landed on Barack Obama's desk after he became president provided him with an opportunity to cure a long standing injustice. The Lilly Ledbetter bill. For over nineteen years this women worked as a supervisor at an Alabama Goodyear Tire and Rubber factory. Late in her career someone left an anonymous note on her desk informing her she’d been receiving substantially less in pay than all the male supervisors doing the exact same job. About $6,000 a year less. That meant she’d put away less in retirement and paid less into her social security account. She decided to file suit. The case went to trial and she won. A jury awarded her all of her back pay. But the company appealed the verdict. Then they coincidentally decided to move her into a different job. One that required she lift tires made for Hummers. She had to take early retirement. After a ten year journey, her case finally ended up in the Supreme Court. The justices promptly threw it out. The court held she should have filed suit within six months of the company's initial decision to pay her less based upon her sex. Essentially they said she should have sued before she ever discovered she was being discriminated against. The new law, sponsored by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., would force judges to adopt Ledbetter's position that each paycheck she received was a separate act of discrimination that extended the statutory time period for filing suit. Such a rule is necessary because victims of pay discrimination have a lot of difficulty finding out what others are paid. It isn’t like it’s posted on the company bulletin board. "This practice didn't just cost Lilly Ledbetter thousands and thousands of dollars; it is costing women across this country millions and millions," Miller said. When the new law signed by President Obama goes into effect, it will likely affect more than the time limit for bringing illegal pay discrimination claims. After the Supreme Court ruled, federal judges across the country began employing stricter time standards in other discrimination cases, such as fair-housing and age discrimination suits. So who would oppose such a bill? Why, our old friends at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Calling it a boon for greedy trial lawyers and calling instead for more tort reform to restrict people like Lilly Ledbetter from ever bringing suit in the first place. Measures like capping what someone can recover when victimized or injured. Or the newest strategy, limiting what they can pay their lawyer. All touted as needed reforms to stop litigious people like Lilly Ledbetter. In fact, according to the American Tort Reform Association, the bill was a bad idea because it would promote frivolous lawsuits and drive more American jobs overseas. Does anyone but me hear an echo here? Once again, it’s the same old mantra of greedy trial lawyers, frivolous lawsuits and a court system out of control. You hear it as their talking points on radio and TV adds across the country. So what do you think dear reader? Was Ms. Ledbetter’s suit frivolous? Were her lawyers who worked for over ten years without ever collecting a dime greedy? Was the court system out of control? Do you think we need more tort reform like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s TV adds claim? Or do you feel like a lot of other Americans, that this new legislation helps restore what America is supposed to be about - fair and equal treatment for all. And the right to use the court system if a corporation decides to treat another Lilly Ledbetter the way Goodyear Tire and Rubber did.