USLegal Reporter

The House passed a bill Tuesday that extends the time limit placed by the Supreme Court on when employees may bring lawsuits against their employers for discrimination based on pay. The legislation, referred to as the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, allows employees to bring discrimination suits within 180 days of their last affected paychecks.

The Supreme Court’s May ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. stated that an employee must bring his or her suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for payment discrimination within 180 days of a decision involving pay and could not bring such suit if the discrimination occurred outside the statute of limitations, even if the employee received a paycheck within the statutory period. In this case, the district court ruled in favor of Ledbetter, who alleged before she retired from 19 years of employment with the company that she was paid less than her male coworkers because of sex discrimination. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and held that Ledbetter should have brought her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint within six months of the alleged discrimination. The Supreme Court affirmed and refused to accept Ledbetter’s claim that each of her paychecks resulted in a violation with a separate six month period within which she could file her claim.

Opponents argue that under the new law, employees can bring employment discrimination claims years after the alleged discrimination takes place.

The bill number is H.R. 2831.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/07/us-house-extends-statutory-limits-on.php

Walgreens, the nation’s biggest drug store chain, today settled a discrimination lawsuit by minority workers who accused the company of denying them promotions on account of their race. The lawsuit was brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of black employees.

As part of the settlement, Walgreens has agreed to pay $20 million to an estimated class of 10,000 employees. Walgreens will also be monitored for the next five years and have its employment processes reviewed.

Source: http://www.suntimes.com/business/466941,CST-FIN-walgreen13.article

The U.S. Supreme Court held on Tuesday that employees who contended they received disparate treatment on the basis of gender or race must file their claims within 180 days of the original discriminatory action, rather than within 180 days from their last paycheck. According to the court, “[a] new violation does not occur, and a new charging period does not commence, upon the occurrence of subsequent nondiscriminatory acts that entail adverse effects resulting from the past discrimination.” Following this decision, employers will have an easier time defending against Title VII workplace discrimination claims that are based on decisions regarding salary and raises made long before they were filed, sometimes without documentation and by supervisors who no longer work for the company.

A Goodyear plant manager from Gadsden, Alabama, Lilly Ledbetter, alleged that she was paid 15 to 40 percent less than her male coworkers. Goodyear argued that she did not timely file her complaint. Ledbetter initially filed suit in 1999 in federal court for the northern district of Alabama and received a jury verdict of $223,000 in back pay and over three million dollars in punitive damages for discrimination that affected her from the time she was hired until the time she filed her EEOC complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed the jury decision, ruling that no discriminatory employment decision was made within the 180 days before she filed her complaint.

The case is Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Inc., 05-1074, 550 U.S. ___ (2007).

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/scm/PubArticleSCM.jsp?id=1180429529311

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a workplace discrimination case brought by a Muslim immigrant from Afghanistan. A federal jury previously found that Abdul Azimi experienced workplace harassment but refused to award compensation. Azimi worked for Jordan’s Meats Inc. in the state of Maine, and alleged that his harassment worsened after 9/11.

Azimi requested review by the Supreme Court of whether the U.S. District Judge erred in previously dismissing his claim that his firing was discriminatory. Attorneys for Azimi also sought review of whether the judge mistakenly refused to allow jury instructions on a punitive damages award where a jury does not return an award of compensatory damages. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that Azimi offered no evidence of any out-of-pocket medical or psychological treatment or counseling expenses or any loss wages evidence and that the jury was reasonable in rejecting the emotional distress testimony.

Azimi v. Jordan’s Meats, 06-916

See http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/03-19-2007/7a430006a1dd6888.html ;

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2602.01A