Women of Influence: fair pay champion, Lilly Ledbetter
One of the most inspiring stories in Alabama women’s history is Lilly Ledbetter — a fair pay champion since the late 90’s. From her humble beginnings — in a house with no running water or electricity in the small town of Possum Trot, Ala. — Ledbetter became nationally recognized as one of the many faces of gender prejudice and sexual harassment in the workplace by the mid 2000’s. A graduate of Jacksonville High School in Jacksonville, Ala., Ledbetter started working as a district manger for H&R Block in 1969 where she oversaw 14 locations in Jacksonville and the surrounding area. By the time she left the company, she was overseeing 16 locations. While she was working with H&R Block, she also spent three years working at Jacksonville State University as an Assistant Financial aid director. “I would go in to teach classes, and do tax prep at night and on the weekend,” Ledbetter said. In 1979, Ledbetter applied and accepted her dream position as a manager at the Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Ala. where she became one of the first women hired on for a management position. She said she could go toe-to-toe with any man, doing any job at the factory, nevertheless she still experienced sexual harassment and gender prejudice. After 19 years of working with the company, Ledbetter received an anonymous tip that she was receiving thousands less than her male peers in wages. Heartbroken, Ledbetter filed a sexual discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1999. Her case went to trial, and the jury awarded her $3.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages for the pay discrimination she had been subjected to. In November of 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Court reversed the jury’s verdict, saying that because the company’s original decision on her pay had been made years earlier, Ledbetter’s case was filed too late, even though she continued to receive discriminatory pay. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Eleventh Circuit decision and ruled employees cannot challenge ongoing pay discrimination if the employer’s original discriminatory pay decision occurred more than 180 days earlier, even when the employee continues to receive paychecks that have been discriminatorily reduced. “It was not fair, it wasn’t even close to being fair. We must go to congress, the house and the senate to prevent this from happening in the future to other females and minorities,” Ledbetter said in an interview. And she did. After realizing that the Supreme Court’s decision could undermined the Congressional goal of eliminating discrimination in the workplace, and after being called upon by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Congress and President Barack Obama‘s Administration acted quickly Less than two years after the Supreme Court’s decision, both the House and Senate passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. A crucial piece of legislation, restoring the longstanding laws that ensure individuals who are subjected to unlawful pay discrimination are able to effectively assert their rights under the federal anti-discrimination laws. Ledbetter is still an activist today, spending her time traveling the country and educating women on fair and equal pay. “There’s still so much work to be done for women and their family’s,” Ledbetter said. “In 2020 women will have only been able to vote for 100 years! We haven’t even been able to even vote for 100 years and we still have so few rights that politicians want to do away with.” “We have to pay attention, especially with things like equal pay, where there are laws in place, but no one is enforcing them. Women have to make sure they’re being enforced so they can take care of themselves and their families.” Ledbetter is still fighting for women and equal pay across the nation, but was kind enough to answer some of Alabama Today’s questions about her life, work, and influences: How have other women influenced your success? Marcia D. Greenberger from the National Women’s Law Center, was absolutely instrumental in helping me navigate the legislative and political events I attended. She jokingly told me that she was my “bag carrier” at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. I had never been in a large group of politicians like that, as I’m not from a political background, I had no idea what I was doing and she guided me like a professional. She has inspired me tremendously, and many other women have succeeded because of her. Today Justice Ruth Bader Gingsburg is my hero! She has made a tremendous progress for women/minorities! She was the one who challenged Congress to change the Law after ruling in Ledbetter v Goodyear verdict. Did you know when you began fighting for equal pay that it would gain as much attention as it did? When I began fighting for Equal Pay, it was for myself and then it became a battle for everyone!! I had no idea the fight would gain so much attention, but everyone “got it”— Unequal Pay breaks the Law! Equal Pay is a Family affair— Unequal Pay will affect a person’s retirements also. What has been your favorite area of service, and what is your favorite thing about that position? My favorite area of service are the groups that had never thought about how Equal Pay affects your life while working and retirements! Young college groups also think we have Equal Pay and it will not be a problem when they start work. They know have Equal Pay Law, but do not understand it was enforced. Have you read any books that have shaped your perspective on life? Books on Elenor Roosevelt helped me understand the difference one person could make. First Lady E.R. made much progress and was ahead of her time. What advice would you give to young women who lack the courage to stand up for themselves? Young women need to make sure they get the Pay their work, experience, etc. because what they are short changed will affect their lives forever!! When it is lost—no way to ever get it corrected. How do you spend your free time? I try to stay very involved with my grandchildren and I love to visit them
Phil Williams: Push for transgender bathrooms could jeopardize right to privacy
Do not sacrifice the rule for the exception Across our nation there is a deafening debate about the “rights” of those who claim a gender preference or identity other than the one with which they were born. Make no mistake: it is a debate that is happening even here in the very conservative state of Alabama. As I write this, a big-box retailer with multiple outlets in this state has decided to make all of their multi-stall restrooms unisex, with a complete disregard for long-standing law, tradition, and biology. More egregiously, this decision was made with no concern for the privacy and security concerns of their customers. In essence, Target has thrown out the rule in favor of the exception. In North Carolina, the city of Charlotte passed an ordinance requiring public restrooms to allow persons to use bathrooms according to their own gender self-identification. So if a man identified as a woman, the city of Charlotte would force a restaurant owner to allow the man identifying as a woman to use the ladies’ restroom. Sensibly, the North Carolina legislature passed a law requiring people to use the bathroom that corresponds to the gender on their birth certificate, thus overriding the city of Charlotte’s dangerous ordinance. That law is being litigated even now and Alabama must be ready by the next legislative session to deal with the outcome. Today, after careful research and review, I have filed a bill to deal with this issue in Alabama. I admire the stand made by the North Carolina legislature. But I chose to come at the problem from a different angle in the event that North Carolina’s law does not prevail in court. It is important that the instigators of social change be confronted with the customs and laws of the various locales they are dealing with. In Alabama, the courts have long held that the citizens of this state have a right to privacy and a right to feel secure; and that these rights extend not just to the physical, but also to the mental and emotional wellbeing of the individual. The right to privacy of an individual in a place in which they would ordinarily and reasonably expect to be secluded, even where that secluded place is public in nature, has been upheld by the state and federal courts in Alabama for years. By implication this principle would have to extend to restroom, bathroom and changing facilities. The argument that a self-professed “gender identity” affords access to a facility over the deep concerns of other members of the public is a violation of that right to privacy. Even the liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has stated that the notion that a ban on sex discrimination requires unisex restrooms in public places is “emphatically not so.” So let’s be clear. If the priests of political correctness are going to call for the sacrifice of the privacy and security of the vast majority of the citizenry then there is going to be a fight. If my bill passes, which I believe that it will, the law of this state will reaffirm that privacy and security are inherently and naturally given to the public in this state. If North Carolina’s law is struck down then my legislation will become a backstop to say that if any person or entity provides public restrooms, bathrooms, or changing facilities then they will do so in one of three ways: a single user facility; facilities separated by the physical gender of the users; or, if facilities are provided in a unisex/transgender manner, an attendant for each facility must be onsite to address any concerns or questions of the general public. Failure to do so would result in civil penalties and provide a private right of action in court for those individuals who have been harmed or aggrieved. There will be push back on this. Liberals do not agree with anyone having a say in their debate. But my legislation is designed to provide security to the public at large, and this bill could just as easily protect a transgender user of a public facility from being harmed as well. The bottom line is that we have a right to privacy in place now; and liberals should not for a second think that Alabamians will simply stand by and allow the exceptions to throw out the rule. ••• Phil Williams represents Etowah, Cherokee, Dekalb and St. Clair counties in the Alabama Senate. You may reach Senator Williams by phone at (334) 242-7857 or by e-mail at phil@williamsstatesenate.com. Follow him on Twitter for the latest legislative updates: @SenPhilWilliams.
Bob Sparks: Another Antonin Scalia is not in the cards, no matter who appoints justice
The already heated political rhetoric about replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court is a sad spectacle. It is unseemly. Some shared their relief that Scalia was dead via social media. Most showed far more class. Before Scalia’s body had even left the morgue in Texas, the politics of replacing him took center stage, literally. It was the opening topic at Saturday’s GOP debate in South Carolina. Republicans, of course, want another Scalia and are therefore advocating for a Republican president to fill the seat. Democrats, of course, want just the opposite and demand hearings on President Barack Obama’s impending nomination. While I would personally agree with Republicans on the desire to have another brilliant originalist on the court, there will not be another Scalia anytime soon. No matter who is appointed, Democrats can take comfort in that reality. Many of those supporting Justice Scalia did so mostly because he ruled according to their political or personal view of the issue. On the other hand, he infuriated his detractors by being on the “wrong” side of a legal issue and by the pointed way he told them why they were wrong. Scalia made it fun for some non-lawyers, including this writer, to read his opinions. Concurring opinions could sometimes be as entertaining as his scathing dissents. While his writings were enlightening, listening to him outline his view on the role of the judicial branch was another source of education. During his first term, Gov. Jeb Bush brought Scalia to Tallahassee to address the senior leadership of his Capitol staff and agencies. It was one of the most enlightening and educational hours many of us ever spent. The tributes, both kind and grudging, coming his way refer to him as a “conservative jurist.” That description is too simplistic to capture just who Antonin Scalia was. Anyone who truly listened to him describe the roles of all three branches of government as enshrined within the Constitution, came away with a better understanding of the genius of the founders. Those reading his opinions know just how difficult it is to label him merely as a conservative. At the same time, he did openly admit to being a social conservative An “originalist,” meaning one who takes the Constitution by the true meaning of the founders, is the only true legal pigeonhole in which Justice Scalia belonged. He railed against the Supreme Court, or any court, for creating new federal power that was not specifically granted in the Constitution. He thought courts were not empowered to assign new rights by decree. Such power, he believed, should remain with voters and legislatures, unless they ran afoul of the governing document. For example, Scalia joined with the majority to basically unleash more money into politics through the Citizens United decision. He believed the First Amendment prohibited legislatures from placing limits on a constitutionally protected activity (“speech”) as it was defined. That decision enrages liberals to this day. He also joined with the majority in another case where burning the American flag was given a green light. Such activity is protected free speech. “If it were up to me, I would have thrown this bearded, sandal-wearing flag burner into jail,” Scalia said later during a speech. “But it was not up to me.” The Constitution, in that case, won out over personal preference. Conservatives found that case very hard to swallow. Though not part of the decision, Scalia was known to have abhorred Roe v. Wade because it created a right not specified in the Constitution. His views gave Scalia opponents other sources of talking points to use against him during speeches and rallies. Scalia also held the view that using the equal protection clause to protect a fetus was not covered by the Constitution. “You don’t count pregnant women twice,” he said during a 60 Minutes profile in 2008. The Constitution, Scalia believed, is not the living, breathing document others believe it is. Some labeled him a Neanderthal for such thinking. He clearly recognized that society changes, but the remedy was basic. Voters can demand, and legislatures can pass, laws applicable to contemporary times. Courts, he rightly believed, were not lawmakers. Scalia will be missed by those who admired him for his intellect and his sense of humor. Liberal colleagues such as Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Elena Kagan are among them. Those listening to recordings of the Bush v. Gore arguments in 2000 may recall the difficulty Florida attorney Joe Klock had when assigning the wrong name to a justice more than once. Scalia showed his wit as he prepared to ask Klock a question. “Mr. Klock? I’m Scalia,” he deadpanned. Yes, he was. *** Bob Sparks is a business and political consultant and former chief spokesperson for the Florida Attorney General.
