Senate Proceeding 01-21-09 on Jan 21st, 2009 :: 2:41:50 to 2:46:50
Total video length: 4 hours 44 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:269 Duration: 0:05:00 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

2:41:36 to 2:41:57( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: i agree with senator mikulski, that under this situation a strict 180-day filing rule is unfair. as one of my colleagues supporting ledbetter legislation pointed out, the supreme court in t.r.w. vs. adeline, intereted a statute of limitations arising under the fair credit reporting act starting from the date on which the liability arises.

2:41:50 to 2:46:50( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: George Voinovich

2:41:58 to 2:42:18( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: understanding this could unduly penalize vic teuplgs of identity -- victims of identity theft. a fix extended the relevant statute of limitations based on the discovery by the plaintiff of impermissible conduct. when they found out about it, it

2:42:19 to 2:42:39( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: came into being. unfortunately, this is not the approach the ledbetter opinion takes. it would adopt the rule allowing for the filing of lawsuits 180 days after the last paycheck issued by the employer that was affected by the discriminatory act. even if it was a single act tha curred many years ago. in other words, it could happen many years

2:42:40 to 2:43:00( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: would be abl thus, the ledbetter legislation could allow for the filing of lawsuits long after someone knew they were subject to a discriminatory act, effectively eliminating any kind of statute of limitations. as the supreme court noted in ledbetter, statutes of limitation serve as an important policy of refoes our justice system -- repose under our

2:43:01 to 2:43:21( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: justice system. it has been long public policy a person should not be called into court to defend claims that are based on conduct long passed. as many of my colleagues know, it can be difficult to mount a defense in cases in which the underlying conduct occurred long ago because witnesses are difficult to locate, memories

2:43:22 to 2:43:43( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: fade and rords are not maintained. in ms. ledbetter's case, the supervisor accused of the misconduct died by the time of the trial. yet, under the approach taken by the ledbetter defendants could potentially find themselves facing lawsuits that are years, if not decades, old. because she recognizes that paycheck discrimination may not

2:43:44 to 2:44:04( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: be obvious in the modern workforce and a bad actor should not benefit from such discrimination, senator hutchison crafted a sensible compromise. under her amendment, a person could bring a claim under title 7 within 100 days after obtaing knowledge or information that the person is the victim of conduct.

2:44:05 to 2:44:26( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: in other words, you don't start the statute until you actually know that you have been discriminated against. but once you been discriminated against, then it's your that to the attention officials and srt your procedure to get your remedy.

2:44:27 to 2:44:47( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: by allowing a person to bring a claim from 180 days after the discriminatory conduct is discovered, senator hutchison's amendment stops bad actors from benefitting and addresses many of the concerns many of my colleagues have raised but t pendulum in the opposite

2:44:48 to 2:45:08( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: direction creating an open-ended legal liability that could expose businesses -- the very enties we need to lift out of our economy, this recess -- to expensive new legal liabilities. this may not be good for insurance companies who write policies and trial lawyers who bring lawsuits i do not believe this legislation could be sound, public policy.

2:45:09 to 2:45:31( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: finally, i want to address a related issue before i yield the floor. besides disagreeing on the solution to the issues created by ledbetter decision, senator mikulski's legislation did not go through the help committee during ts congress. while i understand the help committee held one hearing on

2:45:32 to 2:45:53( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: the ledbetter bill during the 101th this congress have occurred before senator mikulski introduced the legislation so comparing the approaches. i understand it is sometimes necessary, madam president, committee process, the senate has started to bypass the

2:45:54 to 2:46:15( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: committee's process too frequently. all i'd like to say is that when we have legislation introduced, from my experience it's brought to committee, we debate the legislation, there are amendments that are given, there is testimony that is given and so often as a result of that committee's process, compromises can be worked out so once the bill is out of committee in many

2:46:16 to 2:46:36( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: instances you can get a u.c. and get that legislation passed. or at least people have had a chance to talk about it in terms of some compromises. so i'm glad to be involved in this debate but i believe the senate and our nation would be better served if the senate got back into the habit of taking up legislation after it has again through the relevant committee. i believe good these two

2:46:37 to 2:46:50( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: legislative proposals had been discussed in the help committee the committee may have crafted a compromise bill that had the support of most.