(upi/newscom)
Barack and Michelle Obama lead celebration of new equal pay law
By Dave Cook | 01.29.09
Since her highly photographed appearances at various inaugural balls, the first lady has spent much of her time out of public view helping her two daughters adjust to their new surroundings.
But on Thursday, Michelle Obama played a very public role with her husband marking the passage of a new equal pay law.
Obama’s first bill signing
After the first couple made a trip to their daughter Sasha’s school in Maryland, the president went to the East Room on the first floor of the White House to sign his first bill into law. The measure, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, reversed a 2007 US Supreme Court decision that made it harder to sue for pay discrimination.
At the signing, the president paid tribute to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who attended the ceremony. “It’s appropriate that this is the first bill we do together. We could not have done it without her,” Mr. Obama said.
Most of the attendees at the signing ceremony then walked across the hall to the State Dining Room, where Mrs. Obama hosted a reception for Ms. Ledbetter, the Alabama woman for whom the bill was named. It was the first official White House event she has hosted. The president mingled with the crowd but left before his wife spoke.
Battling unfairness
With Ms. Ledbetter standing next to her, Mrs. Obama paid tribute to her “commitment, her dedication, her focus.” Mrs. Obama, wearing a purple suit and white pearls, said Ms. Ledbetter “knew unfairness when she saw it and was willing to do something about it because it was the right thing to do, plain and simple.”
After 19 years on the job at Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Ledbetter found that she was the lowest paid supervisor in her plant despite being more experienced than several male counterparts. A jury found the company guilty of discrimination but the Supreme Court held that a discrimination claim must be filed within 180 days of the first offense. The measure Obama signed today provides that every discriminatory paycheck extends the statute of limitations for 180 days.
Needed more when times are tough
The first lady said that, “This legislation is an important step forward, particularly at a time when so many families are facing economic insecurity and instability.”
Mrs. Obama then introduced Ms. Ledbetter, who she described as “an inspiration to women and men all across the country.” The crowd clapped and cheered.
In response, Ms. Ledbetter said, “Words cannot begin to describe how honored and humbled I feel today. When I filed my claim against Goodyear with the EEOC ten years ago, never, never did I imagine the path that it would lead me down.”
A richer reward
“I have spent the past two years since the Supreme Court decision in my case, fighting for equal pay for this,” Ms. Ledbetter said. “But to watch him sign a bill that bears my name, a bill that will help women and others fight pay discrimination in the workplace is truly overwhelming. Goodyear will never have to pay me what it cheated me out of. I will never see a cent from my case. But with the passage and the president’s signature today, I have an even richer reward.”
After Ms. Ledbetter spoke, she and Mrs. Obama shared a hug while the crowd cheered.
A pool reporter who attended the event said guests sipped orange juice and cranberry juice and enjoyed a mix of pastries, including apricot coffee cake, cherry orange scones, apple muffins and a fruit mix that included mango, apple, clementines and pineapple. Some attendees sat at small round tables adorned with yellow orchids, but mostly guests stood and mixed and mingled.
An inclusive party
While this was the first major public event Mrs. Obama has hosted since moving to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the latest issue of US Weekly reports that two days after moving in, the first lady hosted a party in the East Room for every member of the White House staff.
<< DC area schools actually open - Obama goes to visit daughter | MainComments
2. jk | 01.29.09
I am an unemployed female mid-level marketing person with 30 years of experience. My concern with laws for equal pay …is that they will keep companies from hiring me. I am perfectly happy being a mid level manager…. but will someone hire me, knowing that I have significantly more experience than my boss or even his boss? Afterall looking at my education and professional experience you could easily say that I should be paid more based upon my qualifications. However, those higher level jobs are not available and I am willing to take a lesser job. But why should they take the risk that I might sue later?
4. ML | 01.29.09
Why is it that you must remark in this article on what Michelle Obama was wearing, a purple suit and white pearls? What color was the president’s tie? Does anyone care? You are reporting on an historic event here, the passage of additional civil rights protections for women and men of all races, colors, abilities, etc. and yet you continue to degrade women by writing about the pearls they are wearing.
5. joseph marcucilli | 01.29.09
Your employer ,like anyone in society , needs to follow the law.You are making the presumption that all employers behave the same way.Some of those employers are women.
6. Charles Randall | 01.29.09
What Barack and Michelle fail to realize and acknowledge is that a man will work for a company for forty years without a day off. A woman will have children, menstrual mood swings, take days off for school problems, etc. Not to mention that women are not equal to me physically.
7. lw | 01.29.09
jk -
Equal pay means equally equalified candiates doing the same job, not jobs at differing levels. Your concern should rest in whether or not you can convince an employer that, despite being over qualified, you are suited for a position you are over-qualifed for. Most employers, including me, fear an over-qualified candidate will leave as soon as something better comes along. It cost efficency & real dollars for a company to get a new hire “broken in”. I suggest you be upfront with them about the issue, so you can address any concerns they may have.
Good luck with your search!
8. nr | 01.29.09
It doesn’t matter what employers are willing to pay if they can look at a resume that says “30 years of experience” and never call you in for an interview, discriminating on the basis of sex and age. For an unemployed woman, having that much experience is a disadvantage. It is like being invisible.
9. DEV | 01.29.09
To answer jk, the law provides for equal pay for doing the same work, not past qualifications.
10. rbi | 01.29.09
So this leaves one question…if I as a male engineer find out there are female engineers doing the same job as I am….does that mean I should get equal compensation? What about being fired over wage disclosure between employees? I mean how else can someone find out what others make? Most companies make sure employees know they can be terminated for sharing that information.
11. cj | 01.29.09
jk, you make a good point.
One question I have is, wouldn’t an equal pay lawsuit be based more upon your time at the company and your performance, relative to the other employees over time?
And when you accept an agreed-upon salary on hire, doesn’t that mean the corporation is protected from a lawsuit founded based on starting pay?
12. Carol Anne | 01.29.09
Why is it that whenever women do anything we are told at length of either their clothing or their menu? Would you have run the paragraph about the menu if President Obama had hosted the reception? I doubt it.
In any case, congratulations to Lilly Ledbetter and all working women!
jk: The suit is for equal pay for equal work.
13. ads | 01.29.09
In response to JK’s comment – it is not that your employer has to pay a woman MORE because of an equal pay law, it is ensuring that women who do the same work as a man are paid an equal wage. The law ensures that a male and female employee who are similarly situated in duties (both mid-level managers for example) are paid equally for doing the same job. Being overqualified for a job has nothing to do with it—if a job is posted, an employer should not factor gender, race, or any other protected class of person into the amount of compensation they offer for the job.
14. byox | 01.29.09
overqualification is not a new issue. discrimination suits were always an option. this law just extends the statute of limitations. lie about your experience. people have done it before. and in this case, if you get the job, it’s beneficial to the company. unless you sue for discrimination.
15. billy | 01.29.09
i applied for a job for an interiors/architecture firm, and never even got a returned call. when i went on their web site (looking for a contact)i realized that everyone that worked there was a woman. 27 in fact. i felt that was discrimination, after reading about this new law im going to re-approach that firm…thanks barrack!!
16. Jarrod S. | 01.29.09
Creating a law to regulate whom and how much a company pays is a waste of time and taxpayer money. Some companies are good, and will pay people fairly based on experience and other factors, while others are not good companies and won’t find good candidates to work there. The government has no place in regulating how private business operates. Our government, as a private business, would have failed many many years ago. So, who are they to dictate how private business should operate? I have hopes for this administration, but trumping up useless and detrimental policies is shameful. With our businesses in a shambles, THIS is the BIG first thing being done? That’s like putting a paper towel in the middle of a flooded basement and awarding yourself a medal. Let’s get real.
17. Al | 01.29.09
1. I would like to know what is “Discriminatory”. Do they have to prove that the reason her salary was lowest because it was a strategy set forth by white men in the back room to ensure that just because she is a woman she will be paid less.
2. What is in 30 years she never asked for a pay raise. Is it the companies responsibility to give her raises?
3. I don’t get this. Don’t think your getting paid well? Leave go somewhere else? Some companies have pay inequalities for a myriad of reasons, fast growth, trying to get off the ground, not enough HR resources to manage that closely, blah blah. Unless the company got together and said..”We shall pay woman less” as official policy I have no idea how this can be defended.
Yet another Marxist cut in the death by a thousands cuts the leftists are committing to this country.
18. TRUE Democrat | 01.29.09
And what this piece fails to mention in another glaring example of journalistic dereliction of duty is that Hillary Clinton was one of the cosponsors and champion of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Act Pay.
Michelle Obama had absolutely NOTHING to do with this historic bill, but yet you mention the Obamas, Pelosi and not even one sentence of recognition to the great woman who pushed for this bill and helped make it possible.
How about less Obama propaganda and more reporting FACTS!
19. Kathy | 01.29.09
I agree with others who said, ‘What difference does it make what Michelle Obama wore?’
Wonderful!
20. Julie | 01.29.09
Nice, Charles. I wonder if there are some hieroglyphics on your cave wall to illustrate to you that a man’s hormones lead to far worse - wars, violent crime, for example - than a woman’s intermittent hormonal “mood swings.”
21. Corey | 01.29.09
The reason that men are paid more is that they are more aggressive.
Men are more likely to negotiate a higher salary and more likely to ask for raises.
Whenever I hire, I always offer a lower salary than the maximum that I am willing to pay to leave some wiggle room. If someone accepts my low offer, fantastic, my company saves money. If not, I’m able to negotiate it up a bit.
I’m willing to bet that “strong” women currently get paid more than shy men.
22. Rich W. | 01.29.09
This is a bad sign of things to come. Al is right there are all kinds of reasons for pay inequalities. Forcing companies to pay everyone the same is not a good thing. Most companies reward their better employees with better pay. Now they can’t do that. Why should I would harder than the person next to me if I can’t ever make more than them? Why would an employer ever pay it’s people more than it’s worst employee is worth? You’re making mediocre works who only get mediocre pay. Nice job Obama, this is the change I’m hoping for.
23. Josep R. Mays | 01.29.09
I am glad to hear that this issue has come to the forefront and is being dealt with to make things fair. I feel that if a woman can do the job then she should be allowed to do so and that includes defending our country. I also feel that she should receive the SAME salary as her male counterparts. Anything else is unfair and is NOT part of what I consider the American way.
Joseph R. Mays
24. PEARL | 01.29.09
Al (#17) will never have to worry about the glass ceiling. He may want to grow slightly nervous about the padded room, though. LOL
26. drb | 01.29.09
What if she was a non-motivated, mediocre employee? There are men in my company that get paid more than other men to do the same job. This is because they do a better job. I don’t believe in celebrating or rewarding mediocrity.
28. UNCLE SAM IS BACK | 01.29.09
EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK…yea and look at Michell Obama’s last job as a diversity cordinator LOL LOL LOL….interestingly she got a big raise after hubby was elected to the US Senate and then suprise suprise her employer rec. a big federal pay out…equal pay for equal work what a ^@^^%@$@!#%#$%$ joke.
29. Lucy | 01.29.09
This is a bit scary..What about people who aren’t working as hard as the next..Employers should be able to pay a person based upon how hard or smart they work and their ability to help the employer make a profit. Will this allow people to sue for more money and allow them to not work as hard? I feel as though we might be falling down a slippery slope with what this president is doing. I would hate to be a small business owner right now and am afraid for my husband who is a small business owner..
32. Modern Gal | 01.29.09
To Charles Randall: After 17 years in the same workplace, I’ve never met a man with a perfect attendance record. I have worked with several beer guzzling hapless slack-off men who have needed time off to recover from lifestyle-induced heart attacks. I’ve been handed the work of men who’ve made $30,000 per year more than me and have been expected to do it for less pay. I do NOT take off work when my kids are sick. I’ve got a nanny. I’ve also known a few Birkenstock dudes who’ve shuttled their infants about so they could be breast fed over the lunch hour. These guys were P-whipped and needed to buy some formula, chill out, and ease into the 21st century. All of the men I work with can bench press more than me. I’ve had more of them than I can count come to me and ask me for help in handling their assignments. All of the men I work with were more collegial to me during my pregancy than my female co-workers. The women wanted to engage me in discussions about their twenty one pound babies, delivered complete with hair and teeth, sans painkillers. Life goes on. Lets not make it so hard. I’m not hung up over my anatomy. Perhaps you need to find a better way to deal with yours.
33. Nicole | 01.29.09
I’m really quite shocked and appalled that so many people would have negative things to say about an EQUAL PAY for EQUAL WORK law. This is not a “Pay Women More So They Don’t Cry” law or a “Give Raises to Everyone, Even if They Don’t Deverve Them” Law. It is simply stating that a person (not ONLY a woman) who is performing in the same way as another employee, and who has put in the same amount of time and effort deserves the same amount of pay. How in the world is this an unreasonable law? And for those of you who do not believe that discrimination does not exist in the world place, might I suggest you take a little trip across the country, and duck into a few offices here and there and tell me what you see. Just because it hasn’t happened to you, does not mean it does not exist. And JK, what you said had nothing to do with the law that was actually passed.
34. Justin | 01.29.09
@Al
Raises were given based on performance and evaluations. She made the claim that she was poorly evaluated by male management entirely based on the fact she was female and that this discrimination caused, over time, her to be payed less than her male counter parts. She ended up winning that case in a court of law.
The counter by Goodyear was that she should have made the claim at the time she was discriminated against which was upheld by the Supreme Court. This overturns that decision as the article states, “The measure Obama signed today provides that every discriminatory paycheck extends the statute of limitations for 180 days.”
It effectively prevents a company from being able to run out the limitation on a discrimination case such as the one Ms. Ledbetter went through.
35. belemoo | 01.30.09
I too am insulted at the writer speaking on what the first lady was wearing,who cares.What really matters is that in the picture of her standing there she looks like she has something in her mouth while her hand is clearly giving that microphone a hand job.
36. Dayin | 01.30.09
Has anyone considered the fact that with all the press behind them, women in today’s society are far more likely to sue? Giving women more motivation and ability to sue for more money than they will make in a year, take enormous severance and leave, is not going to inspire employers to hire them in the first place. I’m not being sexist, I’m being realistic. A man’s ambition will make him more likely to put up with **** for career advancement. A woman’s desire for justice will make her sue at the drop of the hat. Feminists would do their cause more justice by first proving they can be reliable, patient workers. As an employer myself, every time I hire a woman, I do a background check for past legal suits, because I’m terrified of feminism in courts. As a result, I hire more men, who while are more difficult to work with, are safer in the long run. Sexual harassment suits, pay discrimination suits, when will it end?
37. stacy | 01.30.09
in response to “charles randall”
that is perhaps the most ignorant thing I’ve ever read.
38. Mark | 01.30.09
These kind of laws do nothing but increase employment for lawyers. Both men and women will be hurt by such a law because this type of law is an attack on those who create jobs. Also, it’s based on a myth. In reality, no astute business owner would ever hire a man if they could higher a woman to deliver the exact same level of productivity for less money. The successful businesses would be the ones which hired women over men, while the ones which hired *overpriced* men would quickly go out of business.
39. Reis R. Kash | 01.30.09
As a former grievance adjudicator and federal mediator, I can tell you that the Lilly Ledbettter law would have been better named “The Lawyer Full Employment Act.” Prior to this stupendously stupid legislation, there was a 180 day filing period starting when the grievant became aware of the act or incident leading to the grievance. The new law permits a grievant to file years after an alleged incident, well after the responsibile officials (if any) are retired, gone, or dead, long after any valid records of the alleged incident are retired, and long after there is any reasonable possibility of determining the facts in the matter. This is a pay-off to the unions and minorities, to be followed in the near future by an act which will eliminate privacy in voting and which will open up all employees to union coercion (another Obama pay off to the unions). Businesses, except for lawyers, will be subject to punitive defensive measures, loss of confidence between employers and employees, and enormous expenses. And this at a time when we should be encouraging management and labor to work together to improve job prospects!
40. kirsten | 01.30.09
Mrs Michelle Obama is simply amazing. Good thing is that she has an inspiring history, fist lady or not. God just lifted her for all to be blessed by what she’s been doing in secret.
41. Phyllis | 02.04.09
The Supreme Court Ledbetter decision overturned prior law and EEO interpretations that said the clock for complaining restarted each time a disciminatory paycheck issued. This Act just restored many years’ worth of prior law. Therefore, those who predict that the “sky is falling” are simply wrong.
42. Lanie | 02.06.09
I’d love to see someone actually try to use this new legislation. They may win the small fight but will end up losing the battle and finding themself on the unemployment line.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
Jimmy Orr has worked in politics for the majority of his professional career working for two U.S. Senators, two Governors and one President. Most recently, Orr served as White House Spokesman and Internet Director for President George W. Bush and Special Advisor to Governor Schwarzenegger for Internet Communications.
David Cook is Washington bureau chief of The Christian Science Monitor and host of the Monitor's newsmaker breakfasts. He was the Monitor's editor from 1994 to 2001. Cook is a graduate of Principia College, served in the U.S. Army, was a Bagehot Fellow at Columbia University, and is a member of the Gridiron Club, Washington's oldest journalistic organization.
1. kleees17 | 01.29.09
I hope there is a video of this. It sounds very nice. congratulations to Ms. Ledbetter and to all women. Our President is indeed listening to all of our plights.