Opinion

[Print]  [Email]        

Beholden Congress crafts a trial lawyer boondoggle

By: Examiner Editorial
-
January 11, 2009

It didn’t take long for the heavily Democratic 111th Congress to begin approving legislative pay-offs to special interests. First in line were class-action trial lawyers who paid for big portions of the majority’s 2008 campaign costs. The House on Friday passed two measures that, unless they are killed or delayed by a filibuster, will hurt seriously businesses, consumers, and workers alike. The bills will also inflict serious damage on an already reeling economy.

The offending measures are the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act” and the “Paycheck Fairness Act.” The first would effectively remove almost all statutes of limitations on claims of wage discrimination, meaning that claims could be filed decades after alleged offenses. The second would remove all limits on both compensatory and punitive damage awards under the Equal Pay Act, enabling trial lawyers to shake down businesses for awards many times as expensive as the wages in dispute. Quite simply, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues are blatantly encouraging their trial lawyer buddies to sue any business any time for any amount.

Both bills would burden employers with greatly increased record-keeping expenses and near-prohibitive insurance costs that eventually would be passed on to consumers. But the trial lawyers would reap a rich new bonanza in legal fees, much of which would return to Pelosi and company as campaign contributions. That’s called “pay to play” in Chicago. No wonder U.S. Rep. Howard McKeon, R-CA, calls this legislative duo a “trial lawyer boondoggle.”

Worse, the bills also upend centuries of important legal tradition. Statutes of limitations,  as Andrew Grossman of the Heritage Foundation noted recently, have been used “since ancient Roman times [in] all Western legal systems.” Grossman continued: “Indeed, they are so essential to the functioning of justice that U.S. courts will presume that Congress intended a limitations period and borrow one from an analogous law when a statute is silent.” Even the often-unreasonable Internal Revenue Service recognizes a statute of limitations of 10 years for most violations or underpayments.

Eliminating such time-honored statutes of limitations and limits on court awards will turn running a business into a proposition so risky, with liability so potentially high and record-keeping requirements so onerous that entrepreneurship and job creation will be severely inhibited. It is one thing to lengthen somewhat the statute of limitations for job-discrimination lawsuits. But the Ledbetter Act and grossly misnamed Paycheck Fairness Act would enable trial lawyers to line their pockets by playing havoc with the past.



Most Popular Headlines


To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff.

should get equal pay

Jan 12, 2009

Getting paid should not matter if your a woman or a man. If you do the same job, just because you're a woman, doesn't mean you should be paid less. In the case of Lily, she didn't find out she was being cheated until later. So this writer says because she didn't become aware of it means it never happened? Sounds like the tree falling in the woods making a sound. It did fall and it did make a sound. Fair is fair. The Fairness Act does not give the green light "to sue any business any time for any amount". It gives the green light to sue any company that breaks the law.

 

Mia

Jan 12, 2009

"But the Ledbetter Act and grossly misnamed Paycheck Fairness Act would enable trial lawyers to line their pockets by playing havoc with the past." Yes, and the ones who will pay will be the consumers of the goods and services these companies provide. With no statute of limitations, the bosses who actually did the discriminating could be long gone. I don't see how someone who felt they were discriminated against could sue someone they haven't worked for in ten or twenty years (or more), but they'll sure try, causing employers to pay court costs for unfounded claims. This will result in higher prices for goods and services. Inflation is not "fair" to consumers.

 

break it you bought it

Jan 13, 2009

These laws are not brand new. If you break the law, you have to pay. When someone gets a speeding ticket because they didn't know how fast they were going, they don't get off for ignorance. The company should know what their supervisors are doing and the personality of the supervisor they hire. Ignorance is not a way out.

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Display Name:

Comment:




Sports

Giants 9, Padres 3

San Diego #####@ # San Francisco... Full story

Economy

India's Infosys says quarterly profit up 1.6 pct, but warns of steep revenue drop

Indian outsourcing bellwether Infosys Technologies Ltd. reported a slight rise in quarterly profit in dollar terms but warned of a steep drop in revenue as its global clients struggle to cope with the economic slowdown. Full story

Entertainment

Judge temporarily bans release of sex tape starring 'Real Housewives of New Jersey' woman

One of the stars of Bravo's television series "Real Housewives of New Jersey" went to court Wednesday to avoid getting a little more exposure than she wanted. Full story