GOP lawmakers block equal pay bill

Legislation aimed at restarting the statute of limitations for equal pay claims with the issuance of each paycheck - legislation Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called for from the bench last year in her dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber - was blocked by Senate Republicans yesterday.

Despite a hard push by Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee Chairman Sen. Edward Kennedy to get the once-stalled bill to the Senate floor and to get it passed, Republicans filibustered the measure, and lawmakers fell four votes short of the 60 voters needed to break the filibuster.

GOP lawmakers complained that the legislation, called the “Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,” would lead to flood of litigation. But some were also angry that the vote was delayed in order to allow presidential candidates and Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to return to Washington from the campaign trail.

“Here we are, shut down on a Wednesday afternoon, no action in the Senate, in order to accommodate the Democratic candidates for president’s schedule,” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Wednesday, according to CNN.

Subscribers can find more background on the bill here from Lawyers USA.

Gay group opposes gay employment bias bills

A move to expand employment discrimination protections to gay workers is facing opposition - from a gay civil rights group.

The House and Senate are considering bills that would protect gays, lesbians and bisexuals from employment bias. The House version, which passed in November, is sponsored by openly gay Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Sen. Edward Kennedy, also from Massachusetts, is pushing the Senate to pass its version as well.

But members of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force oppose the bills because they do not include transgendered individuals in the protected category.

“Leaving transgender people out makes that a flawed movement,” member Roberta Sklar told The Associated Press. The group “strongly opposes” the bill, she said.

Kennedy said that it may take baby steps to cover everyone, but including transgendered workers in the current versions of the bill would jeopardize it for everyone. He said next year - particularly if a Democrat is in the White House - Congress can work to expand the law’s protections.

“The fact is that the House of Representatives has taken action,” Kennedy told The Associated Press. “The best opportunity for progress is … to follow along on the action of the House of Representatives, and then look down the road to a new day after we have a good Democratic Congress and a Democratic president.”

Frank, who was also criticized for not including transgendered individuals in his bill, also said he hopes to expand upon the law later.

Friday morning docket: the Supremes are back

The justices of the Supreme Court head back to work today, where they are scheduled to conference for the first time this month. They could grant some petitions for certiorari or issue other orders today, and this blog will be updated with news on that front.

Next week, after the President’s Day holiday Monday, oral arguments resume, and two cases on the court’s docket involve employment retaliation claims. (As always, links go to the case summaries by the Oyez Project).

Tuesday, the Court will consider whether a federal employee, who has complained of age discrimination and was later fired, can bring a retaliation claim against her employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in Gomez-Perez v. Potter, No. 06-1321. In Wednesday’s oral argument in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, No. 06-1431, the justices will consider whether an employee, fired after complaining that his supervisor used racial slurs, can bring a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. §1981 (the Civil Rights Act of 1866).

Tuesday, The Court will also consider whether the government can allow utility companies to renegotiate long-term contracts with wholesale energy suppliers in Morgan Stanley Capital Group v. Public Utility District No. 1, No. 06-1457, consolidated with Calpine Energy Services v. Public Utility District No. 1, No. 06-1462.

Meanwhile,

Lawmakers in the House don’t like the wiretap bill. (WaPo)

Lawmakers in the Senate don’t like waterboarding. (NYT).

Unhappy with the FDA’s performance, Michigan Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak called for agency Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach’s resignation. (AP)

One lawmaker is pushing to give banks immunity from patent infringement lawsuits. (WaPo).

Rep. Tom Lantos is remembered. (SF Chronicle)

Lawyers to employer clients: Proceed on new FMLA rules with caution

The ABA Journal reports that new issues may soon arise for employers and their attorneys as a result of revisions to the Family Medical Leave Act.

Under a new law signed last week by President George W. Bush, employees who have family members who fall ill, become injured, or suffer some other “exigency” during active duty in the military can get up to 12 weeks of FMLA leave to care for them.

Even though the new rules are not technically in effect yet - the Department of Labor has to formally adopt regulations reflecting them first - the Labor Department nonetheless is urging employers to follow the spirit of the new law, prompting some law firms to issue guidance to their clients as to what constitutes a qualifying “exigency.”

A newsletter from law firm Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker advises employers to “interpret the term broadly” while attorneys at Littler Mendelson cautioned clients that “[e]mployers should be aware that time off under this new legislation may be in addition to family leave available under state law.”

Debate over bill broadening ADA coverage

Today the House committee on Education and Labor is holding a hearing on the “ADA Restoration Act of 2007,” which would bring the biggest changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act since the law was passed in 1990.

Groups including the National Council on Disability have urged congress to pass the measure, introduced in July, which aims to establish clearer standards for what constitutes a disability and what accommodations employers must make for qualified applicants. (Lawyers USA subscribers can read more here. Also more here from HR.BLR.com).

But some business groups have opposed the measure, saying that the bill would essentially eliminate that requirement that a disability affect “a major life function,” expanding the definition so broadly as to include minor or temporary impairments. The Heritage Foundation, for example, said the law would expand the definition of disability to the point that it would cover “virtually every American.”

UPDATE: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also opposes the measure, and posted about today’s hearing here on its blog, ChamberPost.

Among those scheduled to testify at today’s hearing are: University of District of Columbia law professor Robert Burgdorf; David Fram from the National Employment Law Institute; Andrew Imparato, president and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities; and Carey McClure, an electrician who suffers from muscular dystrophy who said her job offer was revoked by General Motors because of her disability.