|
Post by AquaHolic on Jan 29, 2009 13:07:40 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Jan 29, 2009 13:59:08 GMT -4
I'm a big fan of this bill and am glad it was passed.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 29, 2009 18:07:37 GMT -4
It doesn't appear this bill does anything except give people who think they have a legal right to higher pay more time to file the complaint. They went from 6 months to a year. OK, I'm having a hard time seeing why 177 people voted against it in the house, and 32 in the senate. Was there something else attached to this bill?
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 29, 2009 20:55:52 GMT -4
The way I read the article, it changes the statute of limitations from six months after the pay decision was made to six months after the last paycheck based on that pay decision.
So let's say Jack and Jill were hired in 2000 and worked until 2008. Back in 2002 the employer decided to pay Jack more than Jill. Under the old law, Jill could sue in 2002 and part of 2003 depending on when it happened. Under the new law, Jill could sue until 2009.
If Jill had a case, under the old law she would be entitled to damages for the six months the pay disparity existed. Under the new law and the example above, Jill would be entitled to damages for over seven years worth of pay.
Unintended consequences: If I were Jill I would wait until I got fired or was ready to quit and then sue the company for the seven years rather than taking just six months. If I were a lawyer, I would now start looking for cases that extend many years; it's definitely in their best interests.
I have only once heard an example of a male being offered more than a female for the same job. I have worked almost 25 years in a position where I am aware of the salaries of those around me and it has been my experience that there is no difference in salaries where I work. I generally distrust this type of statistic just because it is so easily manipulated to prove whatever you want.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Jan 29, 2009 22:57:41 GMT -4
I guess lawyers need job stimulus too??
|
|