Lightning Strikes Twice

In the last few weeks lightning has struck twice in the area of employment law. Those two events affect the law regarding an employee’s duty to speak out about illegal discrimination and retaliation and about time limits to complain about equal pay discrimination. These two cases affect employment law in favor of the plaintiff, the complaining person.

The first important event occurred on January 26, 2009, in Crawford vs. Metropolitan Government of Nashville County, the United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Souter, that the protection of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision extends to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on his or her own initative, but in answering questions during an employer’s internal investigation.

In this case, during an internal investigation into rumors of sexual harassment by a manager, the plaintiff reported that the same manager had sexually harassed her. The employer took no action against the accused harasser, but soon fired Crawford, who then sued. The court held that, “nothing in the statute requires a freakish rule protecting an employee who reports discrimination on her own initative but not one who reports the same discrimination in the same words when her boss asks her a question.”

The second recent important event took place on January 28, 2009, when Congress passed the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009,” regarding pay discrimination and was signed into law by President Obama. The court passed this act because of the nature of the Supreme Court’s recent past decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007) In this court decision the court held that the time for filing a Title VII charge of employment discrimination begins when a discrete act occurs. The Congress overturned this notion by passing this act and now held that it is unlawful each time an employer writes a paycheck that gives some workers less than others, because of race, sex, disability, religion or national origin.

This act is critically important in that it gives aggrieved employees much more time to complain about illegal discrimination and then resets the clock each time that they are paid without a remedy to the discrimination. The act describes when an unlawful employment practice occurs and allows for recovery of back pay for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge. The act takes effect as if enacted on May 28, 2007 and applies to all claims of discrimination in compensation under title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990 and sections of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

In analyzing an employment case, it is important to consider new cases and legislation such as these two important events. Contact me at robert@bowmanandassoc.com to analyze your case.

Sacramento Family Law Attorney Robert Bowman helps clients across California. If you or someone you know has legal questions regarding divorce, child support, child custody, or spousal support cases and more, Robert Bowman is an aggressive advocate for your rights.