Comments on: More on Today’s Decision in Ledbetter http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/more-on-todays-decision-in-ledbetter/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Jacques McKenzie http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/more-on-todays-decision-in-ledbetter/comment-page-1/#comment-11274 Jacques McKenzie Tue, 29 May 2007 22:15:24 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/more-on-todays-decision-in-ledbetter/#comment-11274 The problem here appears to be that the Court just converted an object of procedure into an object of substance. I see no evidence that Congress intended its filing period to also act as a safe harbor. Rather, it seems Congress intended to discourage stale claims with equivocal evidence and this case -- won before a jury -- was not such a case. I also see no reason why the opposing view was so "crazy" -- consumer protection statutes and racketeering/conspiracy-related statutes operate thusly. It is quite obvious that Congress passed these statutes to deter conspiracies of workplace discrimination, not enable them by providing a safe harbor within which one simply buries the evidence without the burying effecting a toll of the filing period, as is commonplace (indeed, common-law) in the context of as of yet undiscovered (or latent) harm. The problem here appears to be that the Court just converted an object of procedure into an object of substance. I see no evidence that Congress intended its filing period to also act as a safe harbor. Rather, it seems Congress intended to discourage stale claims with equivocal evidence and this case — won before a jury — was not such a case.

I also see no reason why the opposing view was so “crazy” — consumer protection statutes and racketeering/conspiracy-related statutes operate thusly. It is quite obvious that Congress passed these statutes to deter conspiracies of workplace discrimination, not enable them by providing a safe harbor within which one simply buries the evidence without the burying effecting a toll of the filing period, as is commonplace (indeed, common-law) in the context of as of yet undiscovered (or latent) harm.

]]> By: Simon Dodd http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/more-on-todays-decision-in-ledbetter/comment-page-1/#comment-11273 Simon Dodd Tue, 29 May 2007 19:52:54 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/more-on-todays-decision-in-ledbetter/#comment-11273 I'm pleased to see that - at least, on first impression - the court decided the case essentially as I <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/11/recap_ledbetter.html#comments" rel="nofollow">suggested they ought to after oral argument</a>. It is not the court that "insist[s] on immediate contest," it seems to me, but Title VII. Justice Ginsburg may well have a good argument for Congress to change the statute of limitations, but unless or until Congress so chooses, today's decision, declining (as I see it) to essentially eviscerate the SoL, seems right to me. I’m pleased to see that – at least, on first impression – the court decided the case essentially as I suggested they ought to after oral argument. It is not the court that “insist[s] on immediate contest,” it seems to me, but Title VII. Justice Ginsburg may well have a good argument for Congress to change the statute of limitations, but unless or until Congress so chooses, today’s decision, declining (as I see it) to essentially eviscerate the SoL, seems right to me.

]]>