Only fresh bias counts, court rules
WASHINGTON — In a setback for employees who sue over job bias, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that they cannot rely on evidence from years past that shows they were unfairly paid less than their co-workers, even if this past discrimination continues to depress their salaries today.
Instead, employees must point to a "discrete act of discrimination" by their employer in the 180 days before they filed suit, the court held by a 5-4 vote.
By enforcing strict deadlines, the decision narrows the scope of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against employees because of their race, sex, religion or national origin.
It will also apply to the laws that bar discrimination against employees based on their age or disability.
Corporate lawyers called it a major victory for employers because it shields them from defending against discrimination claims from the past.
The ruling threw out a pay discrimination claim brought by a woman who for nearly 20 years was the lone female supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Gadsden, Ala. Lilly Ledbetter sued the company in 1999 and showed she was being paid 15% to 40% less than the men who held the same job.
A jury sided with her and awarded her back pay of $224,000 and nearly $3.3 million in punitive damages.
But the company appealed, arguing she filed her claim too late, and it won a reversal from a U.S. appeals court in Atlanta.
In Tuesday's ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with the company and said her suit should have been thrown out at the start because it relied on evidence of discrimination in the 1980s, not on unfair pay decisions in 1998 or 1999.
Ledbetter could not show that, because of her gender, she was denied a pay raise in those years. She did maintain, however, that her salary was unfairly low because of earlier discrimination.
That kind of old evidence does not suffice, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., speaking for the majority.
Employees cannot rely on the "adverse effects resulting from past discrimination," he said.
Alito said Congress set "quite short deadlines" when it passed the anti-discrimination law. They reflect "a strong preference for the prompt resolution" of disputes involving the workplace, he said.
"Ultimately, experience teaches that strict adherence to the procedural requirements
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas agreed.
