|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures." -- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, August 02, 2007 :::
A few months ago, there was a supreme court decision on pay discrimination. The statute of limitations on filing a complaint is 180 days; the plaintiff had waited 19 years, I believe, to file a complaint, but asserted that the clock should reset with each paycheck, each check being a new incident of discrimination. Even if that were plausible, I can't imagine why you would think you can recover more than the last six months of pay disparity, but even that strikes me as a weak claim. The court decided by a surprisingly small 5-4 margin that paying someone their salary is not itself an act of discrimination and found for the defendant. Ginsberg's dissent called for Congress to change the law. It seemed to me that the decision was correct, but I had to agree that the 180-day statute of limitations is on the short side. Apparently, though, Congress is going with Ginsberg's decision.
This makes no sense to me. The reason the limit should not be too long is that evidence deteriorates and companies need some predictability. The limit shouldn't be too short, though, or victims of discrimination won't have a chance to file their claims. Why should the time limit depend on how long the employee continues to work for the company? I suppose the company is likely to keep some records while the employee is still an employee. But memories still deteriorate, witnesses still die, and wrongful termination still only has the 180-day statute of limitations. Is this supposed to make sense?
::: posted by Steven at 7:54 PM
|
|
|
|