Thursday, January 22, 2009

U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Floor Statement on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Remarks as Delivered on the Senate Floor

Madam President, I grew up in the South when the civil rights era came and the civil rights laws were passed. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act, I ran a real estate brokerage company and saw the transition to fair housing from housing discrimination. I understand the ramifications of the Civil Rights Act, and I am proud and appreciative of what it has helped us to accomplish.

The 180 days in the statute of limitations applies to every facet of that act. It applies to housing discrimination and, obviously, in this case it applied to employment and pay discrimination. Obviously, with the votes that have taken place and the failure of the Hutchison amendment, it is pretty obvious which direction the bill is going.

So it is time we ask ourselves one question: Is it fair to reach back to the 1960s, repeal a statute of limitations that applied for over 45 years, and open the possibility of a plethora of cases that have not been filed to now being filed or, asked another way: Is it fair, after a game has been played, to change the rules in order to change the outcome?

Practically speaking, I would submit to you that this bill should be prospective and not reach back. It should say in the future that all the provisions apply to any case that may be filed on a future incident of discrimination. But to reach back with out limitation and repeal the 180 days changes the rules of the game, changes the law under which people were trying to operate in running their business.

But, most importantly of all, let me tell you what it specifically does. I ran a company for 22 years. I am very familiar with what lawyers can do in terms of bringing in an alleged case, filing a case, taking you into depositions, and then saying: We can put a stop to all this if you will settle for $5,000 or $10,000 or $15,000. It is using an opportu nity open to them to intimidate or, in some cases, extort, in my judgment, a fee out of an unwitting and unwilling business.

So I ask the fairness question: Is it right to go back to the inception of the civil rights laws, take an established principle that applied to housing, pay, and employment of 180 days, and change the rules so people can reach back after the passage of this legislation and create new litigation under changed rules?

In the interest of fairness, I would submit it should be prosp ective, that all the applications of law should begin with the passage of the law and its enactment.

Madam President, I will be glad to yield the floor to the distinguished chairman who is managing the bill and urge the adoption of the Isakson amendment.

***

Madam President, with deference and respect for the chairman, this amendment would do nothing to a pending case. This amendment will only apply to a case that has not been filed and could have reached back all the way to the civil rights era of the 1960s.

Please be aware it would not in any way obliterate anybody's rights on any pending case that has been filed since May of 2007. It would only affect those cases that haven't been filed all the way back to the Civil Rights Act.

So, again, I think it is a matter of fairness and equity. I appreciate the time that has been allotted. At the appropriate time I will ask my colleagues to vote against tabling if that is the motion.

***

Mr. President, the bill as it is written applies to any claim back to May 28. But the way it is worded, it app ears to me it is a claim filed and leaves it open for any past claim to be brought up that wasn't previously filed. The amendment simply ensures that the act couldn't be used for new claims to be filed retroactively all the way back to the passage of title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It is a mere matter of being clear that it doesn't retroactively open the opportunity to file new cases all the way back to the inception of the act.