Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-08), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, is expected to speak on the House floor later today and urge his colleagues to adopt H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007. In late June, Rep. Nadler held a hearing on the impact of the Ledbetter decision, in which the Supreme Court departed from prior interpretations of when victims of pay discrimination can file timely charges under Title VII, and negatively impacts civil rights protections for employees.

Rep. Nadler’s remarks as prepared for delivery are as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007.

"This important legislation would overturn the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear, in which the court severely limited the ability of victims of employment discrimination to seek vindication of their rights as guaranteed under the law.

"What is important to understand about the Court’s decision is that everyone agreed that Ms. Ledbetter had been a victim of intentional discrimination over the course of her 19 years at Goodyear, and that she suffered real personal and financial harm as a result of her employer’s illegal conduct in paying her less than they paid men for identical work.

"The Court said something astonishing: the only discriminatory act was the initial decision to pay Lilly Ledbetter less than her male coworkers. Once the employer had successfully concealed that fact from her for 180 days, she was out of luck, and Goodyear could openly go on paying her less – just because she is a woman – forever. The 180-day deadline to sue had passed. The initial decision to discriminate was illegal, but the decision to continue paying her less based solely on her sex was not.

"Once again, this Supreme Court has gone out of its way to misinterpret our anti-discrimination laws into ineffectiveness. The Court’s decision is an open invitation to employers to violate the law with virtual impunity. Once again, Congress must correct the Supreme Court, and instruct it that when we said discrimination in employment based on sex was illegal, we meant it, and we mean for the courts to enforce it.

"I want to commend the Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller of California, for introducing this legislation to try to clarify for the Court the intent of Congress to provide timely, accessible recourse to victims of intentional discrimination.

"I urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time."