<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1555" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#c0c0c0>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Visionaries All, including my friend,
Ted,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks for listening, Ted... your instincts are
right on the money!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>All the best,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Linda</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=starbliss@gmail.com href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">Ted Moffett</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=lpall@moscow.com
href="mailto:lpall@moscow.com">lpall@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, June 02, 2007 1:18
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Linda Pall On KGO AM 810 San
Francisco Speaks Regarding US Supreme Court?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>All-<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>Was that you, Linda?<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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." <BR><BR>Ted
Moffett<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>