lukegilman.com : The Blawgraphy
Life of a Law Student, University of Houston Law Center

Icon
Please note: I'm no longer updating this particular blog, but keep it around for archival purposes. Visit me at the current blog at www.lukegilman.com

Postscript

By: Luke Gilman | Other Posts by
Go to Comments | 2 Comments

I’ve mentioned the law review write on here, here and here, and am happy to report that my attempt was successful. The casenote concerned Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 127 S. Ct. 2162 (2007). I’m quite sick of thinking about this case, to be honest, but it occurred to me today that being a Supreme Court plaintiff must be a bit like having a fantastically rare disease – you’re interesting to people for all the wrong reasons. Your plight is rehashed a thousand times over by people less interested in your welfare than in the legal consequences you stand for and nine of the most powerful people in the nation just decided your fate for reasons that are barely comprehensible to the average person. So it was kind of nice to hear from Lilly Ledbetter herself. (thanks for the link, Ko!)

Bookmark this Page:
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Furl
  • Ma.gnolia
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb
  • e-mail
  • Facebook
  • Live
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Category: law review, supreme court

Tagged:

2 Responses

  1. PT-LawMom says:

    Congratulations! And thanks for the link – great article.

    Congress is currently considering the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=513

    MomsRising has a petition people can sign if they want to encourage their representatives to vote for the Fair Pay Act (or they can contact their reps directly): http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/momsrising/signUp.jsp?key=2302&t=petition.dwt

  2. lukegilman says:

    That’s interesting. I knew there was legislation pending but I hadn’t taken that close look at it. I suspect, and my paper was based on the notion that the majority in Ledbetter was more interested in solidifying a shift in statutory interpretation and the use of legislative history than it was in making any significant statement about gender-based pay discrimination.

    The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a little disappointing in my opinion. Making each paycheck actionable carries it’s own host of problems, rendering Title VII’s charging period virtually meaningless. I was hoping they would simply insert a discovery rule – to allow equitable tolling so that the charging period would run only after the plaintiff had discovered or should reasonably be expected to have discovered the discrimination, similar to what’s applied in torts. The majority opinion implied that they might be open to this in a footnote near the end. I have a feeling we’ll see a few more of these cases in the next few years.

Leave a Reply

Categories