Talk:Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I edited the introductory text to eliminate the use of a newspaper editorial as a reference, and also to briefly summarize the bill content. 96.255.98.94 (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to delete the Goodyear Tire and Rubber company spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.196.37 (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Republican Aye votes are not correct. Should be Young, Whitfield and Smith. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll009.xml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.92.235 (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Pliant"[edit]

This article repeatedly uses the word "pliant" to refer to Ms Ledbetter. I am not sure what this means. One might assume it's a technical legal word but I've never heard of it and I have been in law school... Perhaps it should be replaced with "plaintiff" or simply "Ms Ledbetter?" Agnosticaphid (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Although this is a tiny article, it has a very nice set of references and inline external links. The good, concise content is sufficient in my view to outweigh the lack of useful infoboxes or photos, but these will be a sticking point for any further progress. I'm going to give this a B rating straight away, but I think it will need considerable expansion to reach Good Article status. Mike Serfas (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensibility[edit]

"The case had never received much attention before, but the Court's ruling ignited legal groups on the left and Democrats that took action to transfom the Ledbetter in a rallying issue for the left, having activists seen in the figure of the pliant an ideal standard-bearer in their attempt to bring the public opinion in the persuasion that the Supreme Court was moving too far to the right."

Is that a sentence? I can't figure out what it means well enough to be able to fix it.12.30.97.36 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

The bill was substantially criticized by many economists and lawyers, yet none of those points of view are reflected in the article. THF (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then add them. I'm removing the NPOV tag until such points of view are demonstrated to exist with proper cites. PRRfan (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, I don't disagree with opposition views, but we should keep in mind the nature of the article, i. e., a legislative piece, which means the views that should count and be reported are those of politicians and the major lobbies, i. e. business groups vs. unions and Feminist organizations. I'm slowly rewriting the article, so please be patient.--Aldux (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economists and attorneys have notable points of view, too. Article is ludicrously one-sided, and makes it seem the only reason to oppose the bill is because someone hates women. THF (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources criticizing Act: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and even [9]. THF (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can add valid sources, but I don't believe it's appropriate to suggest using a source that YOU yourself wrote. Perhaps you'd like to take out that AEI link on the basis of possible COI? rootology (C)(T) 13:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, but I have to notice there for the majority from advocacy groups and parts involved in the conflict: that said, some of these could be useful as convenence links; could you find some law journals and mainstream press articles? I'd like to avoid far-left and far-right sources like The Nation and The American Spectator, as there is such an abundance of articles written on the topic. Passing to another question: I'm trying to rewrite the article, and I would like if you could tell me what you feel is bad in wording and balance (I still haven't touched the last section, so I mean with the exclusion of that one). In particular, I had the impression I had presented the major points of contention around the ruling, and the nature of the ruling, fairly: but then, I may be wrong. And thanks for your contributions.--Aldux (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just inserted an articulate critic of the bill; also, gave lawyers' criticism in particular possibility to express itself. On the ground of this, I'm going to take away the NPOV tag for now. But if you feel this is premature, please let me know.--Aldux (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism doesn't appear to be in the article. THF (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does it work[edit]

Does anyone know if it says women have to make the same as men? Meaning women will start making more than they do currently. Or does it simply mean they must be paid the same? Meaning they could simply just lower mens wages to be equal to women? --24.103.173.3 (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, it says they should be paid the same. In theory, employs certainly could reduce men's wages to comply, but this would have a serious effect on company morale. (I don't know if there are other laws that protect workers from having their pay reduced, but I doubt it.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon[edit]

Pardon my illiteracy, but in the third paragraph of the opening section, I have much difficulty determining if John McCain's referenced opposition is to the 2007 version of the bill or its defeat by republicans. Little help here?

Thanks, Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.12.97 (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified, per NYT. Thanks! T. Canens (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to the Supreme Court[edit]

The article says this: The courts gave opposite verdicts, first supporting the complaint and later opposing… This would make no sense to anyone unfamiliar with the appeal process. I changed it to Initially, the jury found for Ms. Ledbetter, awarding her $3 million, which was reduced to $300,000 due to a Title VII damage cap. But the appeals court reversed this ruling. This is followed by this curious phrase: …in conclusion the complaint brought the case to the attention of the Supreme Court. This makes it sound like the Supreme Court noticed the case and decided to review it. And it wasn't the "complaint" that brought the case to the attention of SCOTUS, it was an action by lawyers from the plaintiff. I changed it to … The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]