Ledbetter v. Goodyear

New York Times Repeatedly Makes False Claims About Supreme Court and Court Rulings

by Hans Bader on February 14, 2011 · 1 comment

in Labor, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

In The Atlantic, former ACLU board member Wendy Kaminer discusses the New York Times’ refusal to correct repeated falsehoods in its editorials about the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and its decision to repeat those false claims even after their falsity was pointed out by attorneys and a constitutional law professor. The Times has repeatedly insinuated that the Supreme Court overturned a 1907 federal law banning corporate contributions to political campaigns when it actually did no such thing.

The Citizens United ruling allowed corporations and unions to pay for their own political ads attacking politicians, but it did not allow them to make campaign donations to congressmen, or strike down the Tillman Act, a 1907 law barring such donations. The Times also falsely implied that the Supreme Court had struck down “disclosure requirements“ for campaign donations.

Earlier, law professors wrote at The Volokh Conspiracy about the New York Times’ refusal to print a letter to the editor pointing out a mistake in a recent Times editorial about federal appeals court rulings dealing with business and arbitration of legal disputes. The law professors also argued that the Times persistently misstated whether it is permissible to detain enemy combatants.

I have previously written about the New York Times’ failure to correct repeated falsehoods it printed in its “news” coverage of the Supreme Court’s 2007 Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision, which you can find at this link. Times reporters such as Linda Greenhouse made it sound like the plaintiff in that case, Lilly Ledbetter, had been arbitrarily prevented by the Supreme Court from suing despite only recently learning of the pay discrimination around the time she retired. Actually, as lawyers have repeatedly pointed out, Ledbetter knew by 1992, if not earlier, that she was being paid less than the male employees she claimed should have been paid the same as her. No wonder the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear dismissed her lawsuit as untimely.

As the National Journal’s Stuart Taylor noted, Ledbetter brought her discrimination claim only after the supervisor she accused of discrimination had died, and shortly before she retired, and she knew of the pay disparity she later complained about for at least five years before filing an EEOC complaint. Thus, she was unable to qualify for an extension of the 180-day deadline for suing based on lack of awareness of the pay disparity.

The New York Times editorials repeatedly makes false claims about court rulings to try to depict the Supreme Court as “pro-business.” But it is not in fact pro-business, as I previously explained here.

Indeed, the Supreme Court is more hostile to business than most of the lower federal courts, and is generally hostile to employers in discrimination cases.

How the President Can Foster the “Civil and Honest” Debate He Called For

by Hans Bader on January 17, 2011 · 1 comment

in Culture, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

In his speech in Tucson, where federal Judge John Roll was murdered, President Obama said that “only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.” But the President himself has often failed to live up to this aspiration, as his dishonest attacks on the judiciary, and his long line of broken campaign promises, illustrate. (Obama’s broken promises include false claims that he would implement a “net spending cut,” not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000, and not prevent anyone from “keeping” their existing health coverage.)

Some of Obama’s attacks on the judiciary have just exaggerated the scope of Supreme Court decisions for political gain.  For example, he deceptively claimed that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment ruling in Citizens United, which allowed U.S. companies and unions to spend money on political ads, “reversed a century of law” to allow “foreign corporations” to “spend without limit in our elections.”  (In response, Justice Alito silently mouthed the words “not true” when Obama attacked the Supreme Court for this ruling at the State of the Union Address, at which the Justices were present as invited guests).  In reality, as I noted earlier, the Supreme Court’s ruling did not lift restrictions on foreign companies; it did not call into question the 1907 federal law banning corporate contributions to politicians; and it overturned only one past Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court’s controversial, 5-to-4 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), a ruling that deserved to be overturned because it was itself “at odds with prior precedent.”

But other times, Obama’s attacks have been completely false — such as his attacks on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which were deeply misleading, as legal commentators like Stuart Taylor of the National Journal have pointed out.

Obama didn’t let facts get in the way of a good story, or milking a political wedge issue, when he signed into law his very first legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which overruled the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ledbetter case. (In that case, the Supreme Court enforced the 180-day deadline for bringing pay discrimination claims contained in the federal discrimination law with the shortest deadline, Title VII. Other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, have much longer deadlines, like 3 years).

Obama falsely claimed that Lilly Ledbetter, whose pay discrimination claim was dismissed by the Supreme Court as untimely, worked at Goodyear “for nearly two decades before discovering that for years, she was paid less than her male colleagues for doing the very same work.” Actually, Ledbetter knew by 1992, if not earlier, that she was being paid less than the male employees she claimed should have been paid the same as her. Small wonder that the  Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear dismissed her claim as untimely. (As Stuart Taylor notes, she brought her discrimination claim only after the supervisor she accused of discrimination had died, and shortly before she retired.)

The White House statement accompanying Obama’s claim made additional false claims about the Supreme Court’s ruling.  It dishonestly claimed that the Supreme Court ruled that an employer can avoid discrimination claims just by concealing discrimination for 180 days — a claim flatly at odds with language in the Supreme Court’s decision, like footnote 10.

In an assertion parroted by gullible reporters, it claimed that “The Court ruled that employees subject to pay discrimination like Lilly Ledbetter must file a claim within 180 days of the employer’s original decision to pay them less . . . even if the employee did not discover the discriminatory reduction in pay until much later (check out Justice Alito’s arguments in the Court’s opinion).”

That claim was knowingly false, since it was contradicted by passages in the very court decision the White House linked to.  First, the Court never said there was a rigid deadline that bars claims by employees who “did not discover” discrimination “until much later.” Ledbetter never argued that the deadline should be waived or suspended based on her employer concealing discrimination against her, because she in fact knew for years about the pay disparity she later sued over. If she truly had been in the dark about the alleged discrimination, she could have sought to take advantage of exceptions to the deadline that suspend it, like waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Zipes v. Trans World Airlines (1982). But she never made that argument, because, as she testified in her deposition, she had been told many years earlier that she was being paid less than the men she later claimed ought to have been paid the same as her.

Ledbetter did not even argue that the outcome of her case would be affected by an even broader extension to the deadline for employees who are unaware of the discrimination against them known as the so-called discovery rule. As the Supreme Court specifically noted in footnote 10 of its decision, “we have previously declined to address whether Title VII suits are amenable to a discovery rule. . . .Because Ledbetter does not argue that such a rule would change the outcome in her case, we have no occasion to address this issue.”  In short, since Ledbetter had long known of the facts underlying her discrimination claim, relaxing the deadline for employees who “did not discover” the discrimination until much later would have done her no good.

Thus, it was obviously wrong for the White House to claim that the Supreme Court was barring discrimination claims irrespective of whether “the employee did not discover the discriminatory reduction in pay until much later.”

Moreover, the Supreme Court expressly noted that the plaintiff could have pressed her claim instead under the Equal Pay Act, which had a longer deadline for suing (usually 3 years) and more generous rules for when the deadline starts running. But her lawyer foolishly failed to preserve that claim, which was a mistake, as he admitted to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court responded by noting, “Petitioner, having abandoned her claim under the Equal Pay Act, asks us to deviate from our prior decisions in order to permit her to assert her claim under Title VII.”

Lawyers like Paul Mirengoff have repeatedly chided Obama and the White House for telling tall tales about the Ledbetter case.   During the 2008 election campaign, both Obama and state democratic parties made false claims about the Ledbetter case, in order to use it as a political wedge issue — claims that were mindlessly parroted by some in the media.

A good first step for Obama in fostering “civil and honest” debate would be to engage in it himself, by no longer distorting court rulings for political gain.

Paycheck Fairness Act Would Mandate Equal Pay for Unequal Work

by Hans Bader on August 2, 2010

in Economy, Employment, Labor, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

The Obama administration wants to force employers to pay some people equal amounts for doing unequal work, through a deceptive bill known as the Paycheck Fairness Act. “Male supermarket managers with college degrees couldn’t be paid more than female cashiers if the college degree for the manager wasn’t consistent with ‘business necessity,’” says economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth in a July 23 column in The Washington Examiner. The bill would also radically increase damage awards for what it labels as “discrimination.”

As I noted in a July 27 letter in response to her column,

Diana Furchtgott-Roth was right to criticize a bill that would require some people who do unequal work to be paid equal amounts. The perverse ‘Paycheck Fairness Act’ is indeed a bad idea. But her column understated the case by suggesting that ‘now,’ an employer found guilty of discrimination is only required to pay ‘back pay,’ not ‘punitive damages.’ Actually, employers already have to pay not only back pay but also damages up to $300,000 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The so-called ‘Paycheck Fairness Act’ would eliminate the cap on punitive damages in gender-based pay discrimination cases, leaving the sky as the limit. Other provisions in this perverse bill could force employers to pay people who do nasty, dangerous, unpleasant jobs as little as those who do nice, pleasant ones, if the unpleasant jobs are performed mostly by members of one gender, and the pleasant ones mostly by the other gender. (Examiner, Pg. 20)

The supporters of the bill falsely claim it would simply treat gender-based pay discrimination the same as other pay-discrimination cases. Lazy journalists sometimes parrot this claim. But it is simply false, as I noted earlier.

The falsehoods may well succeed. In 2009, another bill known as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed Congress based on false claims about what the Supreme Court held in a pay discrimination case known as Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007). In signing the bill into law, Obama himself misstated the facts and holding of that Supreme Court decision, and broke a campaign promise dealing with transparency in the process.

Liberal Senators Make False Claims About Supreme Court’s Ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, During Kagan Confirmation Hearings

by Hans Bader on June 30, 2010

in Economy, Employment, Labor, Legal, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Liberal Senators like Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) are peddling fables about a Supreme Court ruling, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007).

In its Ledbetter ruling, the Supreme Court said that employees who choose to sue under the federal discrimination law with the shortest deadline (Title VII) should generally sue within 180 days, at least where they could have discovered the discrimination in time to do so.  It rejected as untimely a discrimination claim by Lilly Ledbetter, who had known for years of the pay disparity she later sued over.

That’s a far cry from how Senator Cardin describes the case.  Today, in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, Cardin made false claims, both about what the Supreme Court said in the Ledbetter case, and about plaintiff Lilly Ledbetter and her lawsuit.  In claims echoed by Senator Feinstein, Cardin alleged that:

“The Court said Mrs. Ledbetter had to file her case within 180 days after the beginning of the discrimination, and since she did not do that, her claim was barred by the statute of limitations. This defies logic. How can a person bring a claim when they don’t know they are being discriminated against? It makes no sense.”

The Supreme Court said no such thing, as National Review’s Ed Whelan, a lawyer, notes, pointing out that Ms. Ledbetter knew for years of the alleged discrimination before she chose to sue over it.  The claims made by Senator Cardin were long ago debunked by the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, legal scholars like David Copus, legal commentators like Stuart Taylor of the National Journal, and lawyers like Paul Mirengoff.

Plaintiff Lilly Ledbetter lost her pay discrimination case because she filed her complaint too late. The Court said that in most cases, employees should file an EEOC complaint within 180 days of their first discriminatory paycheck, if they want to sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

But the Court also specifically left open the possibility that employees could sue later simply because they didn’t know of the discrimination at the time — a situation it said did not apply to Ledbetter’s case (she testified in her deposition that she knew of the pay disparity in 1992, but only filed her complaint with the EEOC in 1998, around the time she retired). The Court pointedly noted that plaintiff could have pressed her claim instead under the Equal Pay Act, which has a longer deadline for suing. (Moreover, as lawyer Paul Mirengoff notes, the Supreme Court has long allowed hoodwinked employees to rely on equitable tolling, waiver, and estoppel to sue beyond the deadline, when employer deception keeps them from suing within 180 days, as it made clear in its Zipes decision.)

As Stuart Taylor, a legal commentator for the National Journal, has noted,

“Ledbetter admitted in her sworn deposition that ‘different people that I worked for along the way had always told me that my pay was extremely low’ compared to her peers. She testified specifically that a superior had told her in 1992 that her pay was lower than that of other area managers, and that she had learned the amount of the difference by 1994 or 1995. She added that she had told her supervisor in 1995 that ‘I needed to earn an increase in pay’ because ‘I wanted to get in line with where my peers were, because… at that time I knew definitely that they were all making a thousand [dollars] at least more per month than I was.’”

The Supreme Court did not create a rigid deadline that applies regardless of whether an employee could have discovered the discrimination.  Instead, it expressly left open the possibility that plaintiffs can wait to sue until after learning of discrimination, under the so-called “discovery rule.” It noted in footnote 10 of its opinion, “we have previously declined to address whether Title VII suits are amenable to a discovery rule. . . .Because Ledbetter does not argue that such a rule would change the outcome in her case, we have no occasion to address this issue.” In short, since Ledbetter didn’t even claim that a lack of knowledge had prevented her from suing in time, relaxing the deadline for her would have done her no good. (Moreover, if she had lacked knowledge as a result of being hoodwinked by her employer, she could have had the deadline extended under the Supreme Court’s longstanding doctrine of equitable tolling, which applies somewhat more narrowly than the discovery rule.)

After she lost her case, Ledbetter claimed to Congress that she had not learned of the discrimination until the end of her career — a claim parroted by gullible politicians and journalists before it was debunked.

But in Ledbetter’s deposition, she admitted she knew by 1992 – years earlier — that she was paid less than her male peers, notes David Copus in page 8 of the online version of his October 2008 law journal article “Pay Discrimination Claims After Ledbetter.”

Similarly, Washington lawyer Paul Mirengoff notes that “Ledbetter testified that she knew by 1992 that her pay was out of line with her peers. In 1995, she spoke to her supervisor about the problem, telling him that ‘I knew definitely that they were all making a thousand at least more per month than I was and that I would like to get in line.’ Yet Ledbetter waited until 1998 to file her EEOC complaint.”

Moreover, although the Supreme Court dismissed Ledbetter’s claim under Title VII, the discrimination law with the shortest deadline, it pointed out that the plaintiff could easily have pressed her claim instead under the Equal Pay Act, which has a much longer deadline for suing. As it noted, “Petitioner, having abandoned her claim under the Equal Pay Act, asks us to deviate from our prior decisions in order to permit her to assert her claim under Title VII.” She might have won her case had she simply appealed based on the Equal Pay Act, something she inexplicably failed to do.

Why Supreme Court Justice May Have Been So Annoyed at the President’s State of the Union Address

by Hans Bader on February 1, 2010

in Employment, Labor, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

At the president’s recent State of the Union address, he misleadingly attacked the Supreme Court for supposedly “reversing a century of law“ restricting corporate spending on political campaigns in its ruling this month in Citizens United v. FEC.

In response, an annoyed Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was attending the speech as an invited guest, apparently mouthed the words “not true,” although his words were not audible and did not interrupt the president’s speech.  (Obama was criticizing a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a recent federal restriction on corporations’ ability to criticize politicians.  The ruling, which was based on the First Amendment, said it was not invalidating a century-old 1907 law that bans corporations from making donations to politicians, who have long leaned on corporations to give money to their pet causes.  The ruling also did not lift restrictions on foreign corporations.  I earlier explained in the New York Times why corporations logically do have free speech rights.)

Maybe Justice Alito’s annoyance was cumulative, and based as much on the president’s past lies about an earlier Supreme Court ruling authored by Alito, as on his misleading criticism of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.   Past lies make later falsehoods seem less like innocent mistakes.

In his 2008 campaign, and again in 2009, Obama criticized Justice Alito’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which did not, contrary to the president’s claims, create a rigid 180 day deadline for bringing pay discrimination claims after an employee’s pay is set, regardless of whether the worker couldn’t have discovered the discrimination until years later.  (The deadline was 180 days, with various common-sense exceptions for hoodwinked employees, under one federal law, called Title VII.  But it is generally three years under another federal law, the Equal Pay Act, that also has more generous accrual rules.  Most employees could evade the short deadline of Title VII simply by having the sense to sue under the Equal Pay Act as well.  Alito’s ruling left workers with ample time to sue over discrimination, contrary to what Obama claimed.  Lilly Ledbetter lost her discrimination case because she waited until 1998 to file a complaint, despite admitting in her deposition that she knew her pay was low by 1992.)
I documented this in my commentary about the Supreme Court last year.  National Journal’s Stuart Taylor (a critic of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in favor of corporations), and lawyers Paul Mirengoff and Ed Whelan, also described how Obama repeatedly distorted what the Supreme Court said in the Ledbetter case.

More Biased Press Coverage of the Supreme Court and Its Ledbetter Decision

by Hans Bader on December 6, 2009

in Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

Press coverage of the Supreme Court is sometimes marred by ideological bias.  Liberal court reporters sometimes distort what Supreme Court justices say, or the facts of Supreme Court rulings, in order to make justices look bad.  One example is the blatantly false claim by an Arizona reporter that Justice Scalia criticized court desegregation rulings (a claim the reporter belatedly admitted was false).

Another is the extremely inaccurate press coverage of the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. The New York Times has peddled fables about that decision that persist in the media despite being debunked by journalists like James Taranto, legal scholars like David Copus, legal commentators like Stuart Taylor of the National Journal, and lawyers like Paul Mirengoff.

Plaintiff Lilly Ledbetter lost her pay discrimination case because she filed her complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) too late. The Court said that, in most cases, employees should file an EEOC complaint within 180 days of their first discriminatory paycheck, if they want to sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

But the Court also specifically left open the possibility that employees could sue later simply because they didn’t know of the discrimination at the time — a situation it said did not apply to Ledbetter’s case (she testified in her deposition that she knew of the pay disparity in 1992, but only filed her complaint with the EEOC in 1998, around the time she retired). The Court pointedly noted that the plaintiff could have pressed her claim instead under the Equal Pay Act, which has a longer deadline for suing. (Moreover, as lawyer Paul Mirengoff notes, the Supreme Court has long allowed hoodwinked employees to rely on equitable tolling, waiver, and estoppel to sue beyond the deadline, when employer deception keeps them from suing within 180 days, as it made clear in its Zipes decision).

But newspapers like The New York Times did not report any of this. Instead, Times reporters like Linda Greenhouse caricatured the Supreme Court’s decision, falsely claiming Ledbetter never knew of the pay disparity until she retired, and that the Supreme Court created a rigid rule that employees must always sue within 180 days of their first discriminatory paycheck, regardless of whether they knew or could have known of the pay disparity.

As Stuart Taylor notes, this false claim ended up in literally “hundreds of media reports.” But it was completely untrue. As Taylor notes:

Ledbetter admitted in her sworn deposition that “different people that I worked for along the way had always told me that my pay was extremely low” compared to her peers. She testified specifically that a superior had told her in 1992 that her pay was lower than that of other area managers, and that she had learned the amount of the difference by 1994 or 1995. She added that she had told her supervisor in 1995 that “I needed to earn an increase in pay” because “I wanted to get in line with where my peers were, because… at that time I knew definitely that they were all making a thousand [dollars] at least more per month than I was.”

When The Tampa Tribune inadvertently repeated this fable — that Ledbetter never knew of the pay disparity she sued over until she retired, and that the Supreme Court threw out her claim solely because her complaint was not within 180 days of her first paycheck — it eventually corrected its error, at least in the online version.

Originally, the Tribune story, entitled “Equal pay crusader says she’ll always be ‘second-class citizen,’” wrote that the Court’s “majority said that by law she should have filed her case earlier — within 180 days of her first paycheck. It failed to recognize Ledbetter didn’t know about the pay discrepancy until just before she retired in the late 1990s.” Now, it has corrected that paragraph to more accurately read:

The majority said that by law, she should have filed her case within 180 days of her first paycheck – or at least 180 days after she learned of the pay discrepancy. Ledbetter retired from Goodyear in the late 1990s, after 20 years with the company. She learned of the pay discrepancy before she retired, but more than 180 days passed before she filed her case.

By contrast, The New York Times‘s staff not only refused to correct its erroneous reporting, but also refused even to read the portions of the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision (like footnote 10) that proved my point about its inaccurate reporting, choosing instead to rely on Ledbetter’s self-serving, unsubstantiated claims to Congress contradicting the Supreme Court. The Times chose instead to claim that Ledbetter never knew of the discrimination until around the time she retired, and that the Supreme Court threw out Ledbetter’s claim regardless of whether she knew or could have known of the discrimination, simply because she did not complain within 180 days of her first paycheck.

But the Supreme Court did not create any such rigid deadline, and expressly left open the possibility that plaintiffs can wait to sue until after learning of discrimination, under the so-called “discovery rule.” It noted in footnote 10 of its opinion:

[W]we have previously declined to address whether Title VII suits are amenable to a discovery rule. . . .Because Ledbetter does not argue that such a rule would change the outcome in her case, we have no occasion to address this issue.

In short, since Ledbetter didn’t even claim that a lack of knowledge had prevented her from suing in time, relaxing the deadline for her would have done her no good. (Moreover, if she had lacked knowledge as a result of being hoodwinked by her employer, she could have had the deadline extended under the Supreme Court’s doctrine of equitable tolling, which applies somewhat more narrowly than the discovery rule).

After she lost her case, Ledbetter claimed to Congress that she had not learned of the discrimination until the end of her career — a claim parroted by gullible politicians and the press. But in Ledbetter’s deposition, she admitted she knew by 1992 – years earlier — that she was paid less than her male peers, notes David Copus in page 8 of the online version of his October 2008 law journal article “Pay Discrimination Claims After Ledbetter.” Similarly, Washington lawyer Paul Mirengoff notes that:

Ledbetter testified that she knew by 1992 that her pay was out of line with her peers. In 1995, she spoke to her supervisor about the problem, telling him that “I knew definitely that they were all making a thousand at least more per month than I was and that I would like to get in line.” Yet Ledbetter waited until 1998 to file her EEOC complaint.

Moreover, although the Supreme Court dismissed Ledbetter’s claim under Title VII, the discrimination law with the shortest deadline, it pointed out that the plaintiff could easily have pressed her claim instead under the Equal Pay Act, which has a longer deadline for suing. As it noted, “Petitioner, having abandoned her claim under the Equal Pay Act, asks us to deviate from our prior decisions in order to permit her to assert her claim under Title VII.” She might have won her case had she simply appealed based on the Equal Pay Act.

Obama One Year Later — A Legacy of Lies and Broken Promises

by Hans Bader on November 3, 2009

in Agriculture, Economy, Energy, Environment, Ethanol, Global Warming, Healthcare, Insurance, International, Legal, Natural Resources, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade

It’s been a year since the president was elected, and he’s already piled up an impressive list of lies and broken promises.

The broken promises include his pledge to enact a “net spending cut,” his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, and his promise not to sign bills without first giving the public five days of notice.

The Congressional Budget Office says that Obama’s proposed budgets will explode the national debt through massive spending increases, increasing the already large deficits left behind by the Bush administration from $4.4 trillion to $9.3 trillion. His record-setting budgets flagrantly violate his promise to propose a “net spending cut.”

Obama broke his campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year by signing into law a regressive excise tax increase to expand the SCHIP program, and by proposing a cap-and-trade energy tax that could charge up to $2 trillion, a massive cost that Obama himself has said will be passed “on to consumers,” as well as homeowners and motorists. (In 2008, Obama privately admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle that if he was elected, electricity bills would “skyrocket” under his administration, but it didn’t report that.)

He also broke his promise not to raise taxes by backing health-care bills that would impose a laundry list of new taxes on the middle class, including a tax on uninsured people.  Americans for Tax Reform earlier summarized the tax increases in ObamaCare: an individual mandate tax of $900 per individual or $3800 per family (if you don’t have health insurance); an employer mandate tax of $400 per employee if health coverage is not offered; an “excise tax on high-cost health plans”; a “medicine cabinet tax”; capping Flexible-Spending Accounts (FSA’s); abolishing most HSAs; and increasing tax penalties for HSAs.

The costly cap-and-trade energy bill supported by Obama would lead to big tax increases, administration officials privately have conceded, even though they publicly claim otherwise.  “Officials at the Treasury Department think cap-and-trade legislation would cost taxpayers hundreds of billion in taxes, according to internal documents circulated within the agency and provided to The Washington Times” by CEI.  It could raise household taxes by $1761 per year, equivalent to a 15 percent tax increase.   It would also result in “loss of steel, paper, aluminum, chemical, and cement manufacturing jobs.”  (Obama earlier admitted that “under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”)

Although cap-and-trade backers claim it will cut greenhouse gas emissions, it may perversely increase them and also result in dirtier air, as well as harming forests and water supplies.   It would enrich politically-connected corporations, and result in massive destruction of the world’s forests.   By expanding ethanol subsidies and mandates, it would cause enormous “damage to water supplies, soil health and air quality.” Ethanol subsidies have already resulted in forests being destroyed in the Third World, and by diverting cropland to fuel production away from food production, they have already caused famines that have killed countless people in the world’s poorest countries.

Over and over again, Obama has broken his campaign promise to give the public five days of notice before signing bills into law, including his very first law, the trial-lawyer backed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Obama also repeatedly made false claims about the Supreme Court decision that the Ledbetter law overruled, misstating the facts of that case and how long it gives employees to sue over pay discrimination (the Court did NOT say that employees have to sue even before discovering discrimination).

Obama broke seven campaign promises dealing with transparency and clean government in signing the $800 billion stimulus package, much of whose contents were secret until shortly before Congress voted on it, and whose 1400 pages went unread by most Congressmen who voted on it.  (It repealed welfare reform and contained loads of welfare, pork, and waste, while wiping out jobs in the export sector.)

Obama’s broken promises are part of a larger pattern of dishonesty. Obama claimed his $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office concluded before and after its passage that the stimulus package will actually cut the size of the economy in the long run. Obama’s budgets don’t add up, either, piling up $9.3 trillion in red ink, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a staggering $2.3 trillion more than Obama claimed.

Franken Uses Inflammatory Rape Claim to Destroy Arbitration of Employment Disputes, Including Disputes Totally Unrelated to Rape

by Hans Bader on October 20, 2009 · 1 comment

in Employment, Labor, Legal, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

Recently, the Senate voted to ban defense contractors — that is, much of American business — from contractually mandating arbitration of employment discrimination disputes.  The bill’s sponsor, Al Franken (D-Minn.), pushed the bill by claiming that arbitration provisions in an employment contract kept Jamie Leigh Jones from suing her alleged rapists.  But they didn’t: a federal appeals court ruled the arbitration provisions didn’t apply to Jones’ case, leaving her free to sue in court.

Franken’s amendment to a defense appropriations bill banned contractors from requiring arbitration of employment discrimination disputes and sexual assault cases, including “arbitration” of “any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment.”  The language about sexual assault was irrelevant to most employers: Lawsuits against employers for employment discrimination vastly outnumber lawsuits over sexual assault, which are a tiny fraction of all court cases, so the bill’s real purpose was to ban arbitration of discrimination cases, not to do anything for rape victims.  Few rapes occur in the workplace, as opposed to private settings like homes; and even rapes that do occur in the workplace often fall outside the scope of arbitration clauses.  (Arbitration does not, of course, prevent criminal prosecution.)

Liberal trial lawyers have long objected to Supreme Court decisions like its 7-to-2 Gilmer decision upholding contractual provisions that require binding arbitration of employment discrimination cases, even though arbitrators often rule in favor of employees and consumers, and award them substantial monetary damages (although they do permit plaintiffs less discovery than courts do; on the other hand, arbitration typically results in “lower litigation costs and expenses“).   Franken’s amendment largely fulfills their fantasy of banning arbitration in discrimination cases.

Although Franken’s amendment has a big effect on discrimination cases — and no effect at all on most rape cases — it has been falsely described ever since as an “anti-rape amendment,” and the 30 senators who voted against the amendment have been depicted ever since by liberal sites such as Huffington Post as the “Republicans for Rape“  — even though the Defense Department opposed Franken’s amendment, and even though Senators like Bob Corker said they might have voted for the amendment had it merely covered rape and violence claims, rather than a vast array of unrelated employment disputes.

Jon Stewart, for example, depicted the amendment as being all about rape, asking his viewers “How is ANYONE against this?” and suggesting that only a nut or a misogynist could do so.  (This is the same Jon Stewart who selectively edits taped interviews to make conservatives look stupid, or make them appear to say the opposite of what they actually said).  But the liberal Stewart has aimed this criticism only at conservative lawmakers, not at the Obama Defense Department (or the liberal Supreme Court justices who voted with their conservative colleagues to allow all employment disputes, including those involving sexual assault, to be governed by contractual arbitration provisions in the Gilmer case).  So has Huffington Post, whose first inflammatory article on the vote generated over 2000 comments, many of them angry and vituperative.  The inflammatory coverage has resulted in Senators who voted against the amendment receiving hate mail and angry and hateful messages.

Liberal journalists and bloggers complain a lot about the use of so-called “wedge issues,” but they themselves are the ones who typically use inflammatory wedge issues, as the Franken amendment illustrates.

Another example is the many false claims made by liberal journalists and Obama about the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, a subject I addressed at length here.  In the Ledbetter case, the press claimed that the Supreme Court had created a rigid 180 day deadline for suing over pay discrimination — when in fact it did no such thing.

By the way, studies show that Jon Stewart’s viewers aren’t any smarter than Bill O’Reilly’s — contrary to what liberal journalists believe.

Obama: 100 Days of Lies and Broken Promises

by Hans Bader on April 24, 2009 · 4 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Legal, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere

Obama has asked the big three networks to give him a free hour of air time on his hundredth day in office. They have said they’ll probably give it to him — not surprising if you consider all the support they gave him in the 2008 election.

One thing they probably won’t do is ask him any inconvenient questions about all his broken campaign promises, like his pledge to enact a “net spending cut,” his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, and his promise not to sign bills without first giving the public five days of notice. Obama has broken his campaign promises far more flagrantly than his predecessors did in their first 100 days in office.

The Congressional Budget Office says that Obama’s proposed budgets will explode the national debt through massive spending increases, increasing the already large deficits left behind by the Bush Administration from $4.4 trillion to $9.3 trillion. His record-setting budgets flagrantly violate his promise to propose a “net spending cut.”

Obama broke his campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year by signing a regressive SCHIP excise tax increase, and by proposing a cap-and-trade energy tax that could charge up to $2 trillion, a massive cost that Obama himself has said will be passed “on to consumers,” as well as homeowners and motorists. (In 2008, Obama privately admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle that if he was elected, electricity bills would “skyrocket” under his Administration, but it didn’t report that).

Over and over again, Obama has broken his campaign promise to give the public five days of notice before signing bills into law, including his very first law, the trial-lawyer backed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Obama also repeatedly made false claims about the Supreme Court decision that the Ledbetter law overruled, misstating the facts of that case and how long it gives employees to sue over pay discrimination.

Obama broke seven campaign promises dealing with transparency and clean government in signing the $800 billion stimulus package, much of whose contents were secret until shortly before Congress voted on it, and whose 1400 pages went unread by most Congressmen who voted on it.

Obama’s broken promises are part of a larger pattern of dishonesty. Obama claimed his $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office concluded before and after its passage that the stimulus package will actually cut the size of the economy in the long run. Obama’s budgets don’t add up, either, piling up $9.3 trillion in red ink, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a staggering $2.3 trillion more than Obama claimed.

An Explosion of Litigation

by Hans Bader on March 13, 2009 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Employment, Healthcare, Labor, Legal, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Privacy, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

Already burdened by $8 trillion in new federal spending commitments and the likelihood of higher taxes to pay for bailouts, pork, and welfare, the economy now faces an additional threat: an explosion of litigation.

Even liberal Washington Post columnist Michael Kinsley can’t stand the Supreme Court’s liberal 6-to-3 ruling in Wyeth v. Levine, which let a patient sue an innocent drug maker for an injury caused by a physician’s assistant who disregarded repeated warnings by the drug maker. (The ruling indirectly “will cost lives“). As Kinsley notes,

“Diana Levine, a professional guitarist, showed up at the hospital for the second time in one day complaining of . . . hours-long spasms of ‘retching’ and ‘vomiting.’ She was injected with an anti-nausea drug called Phenergan. The label on Phenergan says six times, in different ways, some of them in boldface capital letters, that if Phenergan gets into the arteries, the result can be disastrous. Nevertheless, a physician’s assistant used the wrong method of injection, and Levine’s arm turned gangrenous and ultimately had to be amputated.”

“The drug company Wyeth has sold Phenergan, with Food and Drug Administration approval, since 1955. The official question in Wyeth v. Levine, decided last week by the Supreme Court (the quotes above are from Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent), was whether that federal government approval “pre-empts” a Vermont jury ruling in favor of Levine. The court said no. A more interesting question is: How did we end up with such a crazy system for making important decisions? . . .”

“What happened to Diana Levine is a tragedy and a scandal. But what did Wyeth do wrong? Is there any way the company could have stayed out of trouble? It’s unlikely. Phenergan has been legal for half a century. (If you Google the word “Phenergan,” the results include pages containing an ad for Phenergan online.) So if you can’t get them for the product itself, you nail them for a “failure to warn.” The basic fiction at the heart of the whole system of regulation by lawsuits is that people read and act on warning labels. But the FDA approved Wyeth’s original warning label and every change since. “Not good enough,” said a Vermont jury, and, incredibly, a majority of the Supreme Court agreed.”

The arbitrary litigation fueled by this decision will cost lives over the long run by discouraging medical innovation, notes Gordon Crovitz in the Wall Street Journal. Jim Copland and Paul Howard call the counterproductive Wyeth decision “a ‘cure’ worse than gangrene.”

Ted Frank calls the Wyeth decision the most anti-business decision in more than 40 years. Yet, amazingly, the liberal New York Times, which wants even more lawsuits, accused the Supreme Court of “reflexive deference to corporations“!!!

Greg Conko observes that the jury’s decision was baseless and undermined the FDA’s labeling process. “The physician’s assistant injected Phenergan into Ms. Levine’s artery, in direct contravention of six label warnings against arterial injection. More or sterner warnings against arterial injection would not have prevented Ms. Levine’s injury.” “FDA made a regulatory decision that the benefits of IV injection outweighed the risks, and the agency permitted the product to be labeled accordingly. . . letting a Vermont jury penalize Wyeth for not ruling out IV injection on Phenergan’s label is tantamount to letting a group of laymen over-rule FDA’s expert opinion regarding safety.” Yale Law School’s Peter Schuck similarly criticizes the Supreme Court’s decision.

Don’t expect any help from Congress. Incredibly, it is moving to abolish what little limits there currently are on state court lawsuits that undermine federal drug-labeling requirements. The day after the Wyeth decision, trial lawyer allies like Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal.) proposed legislation to completely abolish any preemption of such lawsuits, even in the exceedingly narrow circumstances where the Supreme Court admits preemption is appropriate.

Drug and device lawyers explain the Wyeth decision as being partly the judiciary’s reaction to the 2008 election, when liberal politicians friendly to lawsuits, and hostile to (often mythical) “deregulation,” made big gains. As the humorist Finley Peter Dunne noted a century ago, the Supreme Court reads election returns.

Workplace lawsuits also will rise. A costly comparable-worth bill backed by the Administration, the Paycheck Fairness Act, passed the House earlier this year on a largely party-line vote. And a law that largely eliminates the statute of limitations in pay-discrimination cases, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, was signed by Obama in January. Obama made false claims about the Supreme Court decision the Ledbetter law overturned (and the facts of that case), and broke campaign promises he made by signing it into law without the opportunity for public comment.

Obama also backs the so-called Civil Rights Restoration Act, which would radically rewrite federal discrimination law in several ways, such as scrapping limits on punitive damages (and allowing them in situations never before permitted by any federal court), and making schools liable for many more instances of “peer harassment” by students (increasing the pressure on colleges to adopt speech codes).

Other “radical employment law changes will create lots of work for attorneys,” according to the National Law Journal.

The economy-shrinking stimulus package Obama signed also contains multiple provisions creating new grounds for lawsuits. It contains increased damages and state attorney-general rights to sue under the burdensome and expensive HIPAA law, which contributed to the Virginia Tech shootings, has impeded public safety, and causes billions of dollars in losses due to pointless red tape. The stimulus package also contains vague and expansive whistleblower provisions allowing suits over actual or perceived wrongdoing.

The Administration also shows no interest in tempering the excesses of a law Obama supported, the Consumer Product Safety Improvements Act, which has shut down thrift stores and entire industries, and gives state attorney generals and their trial lawyer allies broad new powers to bring lawsuits over toys, clothes, and books, resulting in children’s books being thrown out and pulled from library shelves by the thousands.

← Previous Entries