H.R. 2831 would amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice.
Detailed Summary
<b>(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on July 18, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)</b>
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 - (Sec. 3) Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to declare that an unlawful employment practice occurs when: (1) a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted; (2) an individual becomes subject to the decision or practice; or (3) an individual is affected by application of the decision or practice, including each time compensation is paid. Accrues liability, and an aggrieved person may obtain relief including recovery of back pay for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to practices that occurred outside the time for filing a charge. Applies the amendments of this paragraph to claims of compensation discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
(Sec. 4) Amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to declare that an unlawful practice occurs when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted when a person becomes subject to the decision or other practice, or when a person is affected by the decision or practice, including each time compensation is paid.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 4/23/2008: Senate floor actions. Status: Motion by Senator Reid to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked (Record Vote 110) entered in Senate.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Visitor Comments
Lucas Murdock
Why should there be such a short time limit on a person's right to file a complaint? It could very well be that one does not realize he/she has been underpaid until this short period has expired. This is just another way to give corporate America the upper hand in the treatment of its employees. The American worker has lost a staggering number of rights in our very recent history, and some, if not all of them, should be restored. Contrary to popular belief, we should not be canon fodder to help the corporate elite enhance their already fat wallets.
Sharon
Re: Lucas Murdock comment re: short time limit not realizing what rights. I was severly burned at work in 1978 by a faulty hot water spigot. Boiling water spewed all over my ankle and hand, left huge scar on my ankle. I was in alot of pain for months, I had such a good work ethic I went back to work even tho I was in a lot of pain. I did not realize as I was young, 19 years old, I should have filed a suit for the pain and scarring this malfunction of equipment caused me. When someone told me I should have received damages, I tried to file years later only to be told the time limit had expired. I don't believe in some "frivolous" suits people file, but I feel mine was legit. Also, this was M and M Marrs company.