[Vision2020] Linda Pall On KGO AM 810 San Francisco Speaks Regarding US Supreme Court?

[Linda Pall]

Dear Visionaries All, including my friend, Ted,

I confess: it was yours truly. In the wee small hours of the morning, I gave in to the urge to speak to millions about the extraordinarily bad decision of the U.S. Supreme Court limiting the time to six months employees have to bring actions charging wage discrimination on race or gender bases under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Employees do not spend their time canvassing their colleagues as to their salary rates. Discrimination of this sort is, by its nature, a persistent, long-running pattern that may not even be evident in a given six month period. The irony is that a company could argue that six months is not long enough to show the required pattern of discrimination or the Court's argument that the company should be on notice within six months.

This decision is so contrary to the spirit of Title VII that it is really shocking. It is not a surprise that the normally collegial, unflappable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the extraordinary step of declaring her dissent from the bench. Congress will have to step in and adopt an amendment, as they did in 1991 in answer to an earlier Supreme Court decision that removed compensatory damages from the remedies available to people who have been the victims of discrimination. Congress should now take charge and adopt an amendment that speels out in the clearest of terms a reasonable period for bringing such cases against employers, certainly more than six months!

A number of years ago when I was being admitted to practice in front of the Supreme Court in its elegant chambers in Washington, D.C., the admittees were 'treated' to one of those dramatic Supreme Court moments when then-Chief Justice Rhenquist announced the majority opinion from the bench (finding that a non-citizen, permanent resident, an adoptee of an American family who had never lived after infancy in Korea, could be deported to Korea after conviction of a minor crime, I believe as a juvenile) and Justice David Souter's furious dissent from the bench. It was electric!

I urge those of you who are awake in the early hours to listen up to KGO... 810 on the AM dial. John Rothman on the weekends has a usually interesting eclectic mix of topics. During the week, the outrageous but admirable Ray Tailleferro is worth the listen with his passionate patriots. Ray was a long time San Francisco commissioner and a great advocate for the arts in local government. 

Thanks for listening, Ted... your instincts are right on the money!

All the best,

Linda



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ted Moffett 
  To: Vision 2020 
  Cc: lpall at moscow.com 
  Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 1:18 PM
  Subject: Linda Pall On KGO AM 810 San Francisco Speaks Regarding US Supreme Court?


  All-

  Late last night when listening to the John Rothman show (1-5 AM Saturday) on KGO AM 810 from San Francisco, the recent Supreme Court 5/4 decision on employment discrimination, and justice Ginsberg's dissenting opinion, was the topic.  Much to my astonishment, a call came in from a certain Linda in Moscow, Idaho!  I don't think there is a violation of privacy in mentioning this on Vision2020, given that someone talking to tens of thousands of people from Alaska to Baja on the public airwaves certainly expects their comments to be public.  

  The caller said they were "appalled, no pun intended" at the Supreme Court employment discrimination ruling, revealing that they had worked with employment legal issues, and that the 180 day time limitation on citing instances of discrimination in a suit, that this Supreme Court decision supported, would render employment discrimination suits very difficult, given that establishing patterns of discrimination over periods of years is often necessary.  Could it be that the comment "appalled, no pun intended" was a reference to Linda Pall's name?  The caller never did actually give their full name, that I heard, but they certainly implied they were a lawyer.  

  Was that you, Linda?

  Another caller mentioned that this US Supreme Court decision was a gift to many corporations, who may have been facing serious financial penalties for past employment discrimination extending back over decades.  It was also suggested the US Congress should pass legislation to address this unfortunate US Supreme Court ruling. 

  The issue of the five member Catholic majority on the court (Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and recent Bush appointees Roberts and Alito), which was the majority in the employment discrimination case, also came up as as issue, especially in regards to attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade, which with this current court is seriously threatened.  It is well known, of course, that the official position of the Catholic Church on abortion is what is termed "pro life," not "pro choice." 

  Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070604/ec8f5e45/attachment.html