Home Home Page

U.S. House Passes Ledbetter Act over Objections of Business

The U.S. House of Representatives embarked upon an aggressive labor agenda Friday by passing legislation strengthening the ability of workers to sue over wage discrimination. AIM and other business groups oppose the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act because of its potential to clog the courts with costly litigation during a severe recession.

The Ledbetter Act, is designed to reverse a 2007 Supreme Court decision that made it impossible for workers to sue for wage discrimination they discovered years after it occurred. House members passed the bill 247-171 and sent to the Senate, which could take it up this month.

The House also voted 256-163 for a second bill that would require employers seeking to justify unequal pay for male and female workers to prove that such disparities are job-related and required by a business necessity. It would bar retaliation by employers against employees who share salary information with their co-workers, and allow workers to collect both compensatory and punitive damages.

Under the rule governing the debate, that measure was combined with the Ledbetter bill and sent to the Senate as a package. It could face a filibuster there, however.

Democrats applauded the House action as an important step toward guaranteeing the right of workers to fair employment during an economic recession.

"This legislation hits home, it helps America's working women face the challenges they face economically, and it ends discrimination," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif.

But critics said the legislation will merely lead to more litigation, energy misdirected at a critical time.

"What signal does it send to the nation and the world that the first substantive order of business of the 111th Congress is not job creation or tax relief or economic stimulus but rather a trial lawyer boondoggle that can put worker pensions in jeopardy?" said Howard P. "Buck" McKeon , R-Calif., ranking minoirty member of the Education and Labor Committee "This doesn't offer women any protections they don't already enjoy."