Ledbetter Limited

Enacted in 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act provides that "an unlawful practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of [the ADEA] . . . when a person is affected by application of a discriminatory practice or other practice . . . . " The Act was intended to revive pay discrimination claims that were untimely given prior precedent's guidance that those claims accrued when the initial compensation decision was made.

In Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC, an employee claimed that the Act revived his otherwise untimely claim that in 1999 and 2000 Defendant denied him promotions based on his age. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that the decision not to promote was an "other practice" because it led to him receiving less pay. The DC Circuit (Judge Ginsburg) rejected this argument, holding that "compensation decision or other practice" must relate to paying wages for similar work, and not to decisions whether to promote. As such, plaintiff's "failure-to-promote claim is not a claim of 'discrimination in compensation" and was not revived by the Act.

Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers is valuable precedent for defense counsel as it narrowly construes the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and, in doing so, prevents the revival of a claims that are not truly "discrimination in compensation" claims.

Click here for a copy of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Click here for a copy of the Court's opinion.

Untimely Evidence Allowed to Show Background

In Campbell v. Dep't of Human Services, the Michigan Court of Appeals resolved a lingering issue regarding whether plaintiffs can rely on evidence outside the applicable 3-year statute of limitations to support discrimination claims. The Court held that parties may use untimely evidence as "background evidence to establish a pattern of discrimination in order to prove a timely claim." As such, plaintiffs need to establish a claim associated with an injury occurring within the limitations period before resorting to background evidence.

This case will have practical implications for the defense bar. Specifically, plaintiffs can now rely on evidence well outside of the applicable limitations period, so long as they can demonstrate they suffered an injury inside that period. In a practical sense, Campbell could function as an end-around the statute of limitations as allowing consideration as background but not for recovery seems like a distinction without a meaningful difference.

Click here for a copy of the opinion.