|
| Posted by: Perm Dude
- [42426309] Wed, May 30, 2007, 23:16
Any SCOTUS watchers know anything more about this case? Seems a real kick in the pants to me. |
| | | 1 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, May 31, 2007, 13:13
|
I can actually see the logic in the ruling if I broke your leg 20 years ago and you only just relized that i ruined your nba career and i liable for lost wages? i would hope the statue of limitations would have ran out. The only thing that bothers me about suit is that you only have like 300 days to sue that seems unreasable i would think 2 years would be more appropreaite.
|
|
| | | 2 | Doug
ID: 113132214
Thu, May 31, 2007, 13:30
|
Through both personal experience and decisions such as this (or the imminent domain one a year or two back) my faith in the American judicial system has been severely shaken. For a long time I suffered under the misconception that the system was intended to serve justice and more-or-less did so despite the occasional "oops-I-spilled-coffee-give-me-money" type of scenario. Now I'm inclined to believe the its more about parsing the semantics of law in order to find any possible way to excuse unethical behavior.
|
|
| | | 3 | Doug
ID: 113132214
Thu, May 31, 2007, 15:36
|
The article addresses that... it's reasonable that you'd be aware of the fact I broke your leg at the time it happened. So the comparison to a broken leg (or any readily discoverable crime) is apples/oranges.
Things like siphoning funds from a retirement account are things that might not reasonably be discovered until... well, retirement in that case. Basically, the interpretation here means the law is "ha ha, you didn't find out until later, neener neener, we got away with it!!!" Meanwhile the person is screwed through no legitimate fault of their own. Enabling such unethical behavior is a sad aspect of our system. I'm not saying other countries judicial systems are better by comparison, but ours definitely has flaws... flaws than can/should be addressed I think.
|
|
| | | 4 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, May 31, 2007, 15:59
|
I am just saying how is that it took 20 years to relize that she was getting paid less? I did not see but it seemed like she retired said oh man i was not getting paid i want money, I would not be surprised to find out that some lawyer came to her with the idea to sue. Maybe she should have been more deligent allong the way.
|
|
| | | 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 334273110
Thu, May 31, 2007, 16:10
|
Maybe. But how much do you make in relation to people you work with? You mean you don't know? Maybe you should be more diligent.
[In many companies, particularly large ones like Goodyear, you aren't allowed to discuss your compensation with other employees. How she was supposed to know this while she was working there and prohibited from asking is a tough question]
|
|
| | | 6 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, May 31, 2007, 16:38
|
PD actaully as a state employee i can look up everyones salary if i wanted too, though i think if i was making $6000 less a year than lossest paid male coworker i might to notice things.
|
|
| | | 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 334273110
Thu, May 31, 2007, 16:44
|
Fair enough. State employment information is, of course, public information. But Goodyear salaries certainly aren't.
|
|
| | | 8 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, May 31, 2007, 18:32
|
OK...a minor who was abused, gets to file suit anytime in the future, provided its within 2 years of "remembering" the abuse. Right? So what makes this civil action, any different from that civil action?
I'd like to think that the timing, would begin with the date of discovering the wrong. Afterall, how could one file suit for a wrong of which they have no knowledge? (Or do we REALLY want women employees across the country, filing suits blindly..."just in case" they are being underpaid?)
|
|
| | | 9 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Fri, Jun 01, 2007, 10:54
|
i think the logic is there is physical difference between i do not remeber a crime happening to me than i was not aware a crime was happening to me. How bad can it be if you do not notice?
|
|
| | | 10 | Perm Dude
ID: 2054118
Fri, Jun 01, 2007, 11:00
|
Bad enough for the court to rule discrimination occured.
The question of "how bad" becomes moot when the court finds that the crime occured. SCOTUS was not looking at this question in their case, merely whether the plaintiff needed to have filed suit long ago in order to right this wrong.
|
|
| | | 11 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Fri, Jun 01, 2007, 11:10
|
that was piont i was trying to make if you can not tell the crime is happening is it happening or more importantly should you have more time to file against said crime if you only knew it happened after someone told you. i am getting at the logic behind the decision. the question is would the court ruled in the same way if the case was such that a cliet of said company did not like firestone so only paid them 75 cents on the dollar what they paid other companies. 20 years later firestone relizes that they had been cheated for 20 years and then they sue. i personally believe there has to be some sort of resposiblity but on the plantiff in this crime and i think that is what the rulling is basically saying in limiting the time that the suit must be filed by. now is the time limit they set reasonable probably not, but is logic yes.
|
|
| | | 12 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jun 01, 2007, 11:57
|
To require the suit to be filed, without knowledge of the wrong having been done, is absilutely ludicrous and indefensible. Why not charge someone with bank robbery, just for the hell of it? I mean, if we dont need to know something has been done....
How bad could it be? I can see a criminal defense lawyer trying THAT line...
Yes your honor. My client admits to the murder. But he only shot the victim once. I mean, it WAS a quick, efficient painless death. How bad could that be?
|
|
| | | 13 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Fri, Jun 01, 2007, 12:07
|
Sarge you totally miss the piont. It would really be more like what i am dead, how did i notice for 20 years, must not have been that bad.
|
|
| | | 14 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jun 01, 2007, 13:05
|
No boikin, I think it is you who has missed the point. MOST of corporate America has written policy in place, prohibiting the open discussion of employee compensation with other employees. This prevents one person from knowing their pay vs anothers in the same position with the same company. With such a prohibition, there is no viable way for the woman to have known she was being discriminated against and now the court has given corporate America permission to discriminate. Just dont get caught for 300 days, and you're home free. Its BS, plain and simple.
|
|
| | | 15 | lynn
ID: 38522514
Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 15:22
|
i have a law suit in the same thing but mine is more recent i actually still work there
|
|
| | |
| | | 17 | Perm Dude
ID: 30550117
Mon, Jun 11, 2007, 21:45
|
I dunno. The columnist seems more intent on arguing what wasn't before SCOTUS: Whether discrimination occurred at all.
And as a policy matter, it's far from clear that justice would be better served by the Ginsburg approach of opening the door wide to employees who, like the plaintiff in this case, wait for many years to claim long-ago -- and thus difficult to disprove -- pay discrimination.
The columnist seems to be implying that the plaintiff knew of the practice, but waited to sue. But that wasn't the case at all. The case hinged upon the difference between finding out about the action (what we could reasonably infer to have to occur first in order for someone to begin "waiting") and the actual discriminatory practice.
I am still reading a little about this case, but I don't see that writer as having a firm enough grasp on the case itself to be drawing the conclusions they are.
|
|
| | | 18 | Perm Dude
ID: 34340238
Wed, Apr 23, 2008, 12:40
|
Republicans trying to block bill extending pay discrimination.
Apparently there are people out there currently being discriminated against who might take advantage of the courts by insisting on their rights. Or something like that. Hard to see the Republican logic here except a reflexive "Have to keep people from using the courts."
|
|
| | | 19 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, Apr 23, 2008, 12:53
|
Why would anyone want to extend pay discrimination?
|
|
| | | 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 34340238
Wed, Apr 23, 2008, 12:57
|
Now now--you don't want to anger the typo gods, MBJ.
|
|
| | | 21 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Wed, Apr 23, 2008, 12:57
|
I don't want anyone getting bitter over this issue and then clinging to religion or guns to sway their vote.
|
|
| | | 22 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, Apr 23, 2008, 12:59
|
I certainly won't be casting the first stone...
|
|
|
|