Womenstake

7 Questions with NWLC's Dina Lassow

by Jessica Lauredan, Outreach Intern
National Women’s Law Center

This post is part of a weekly series profiling our blog authors.

Dina Lassow is Senior Counsel for Education and Employment at NWLC.

Q: Sex discrimination and the wage gap are still very real for women in America, despite being unconstitutional and illegal. Do you believe the psyche of America must change rather than the laws?

Dina: I don’t see them as necessarily being two different questions. Through the enforcement of sex discrimination laws, you hopefully change the psyche of the workplace — so that women know their rights and those rights are respected. Both factors must work together for there to be change.

Q: More than 35 years after Title IX was passed, plaintiffs are still fighting for its enforcement. Why has Title IX proven so difficult to execute?

Dina: Well, most civil rights legislation is hard to enforce, so I don’t think Title IX is all that different. There is still a lot of discrimination of all forms in the world. However, Title IX has drawn more backlash than many other laws. Title IX has become an easy target for those who are upset about cuts in certain men’s teams, such as wrestling. But men’s participation in sports overall is not decreasing. If certain teams are cut, the culprit is a school’s decision on how to allocate its resources — often with huge sums going to football — not Title IX.

No Need for More Litigation — CU Settles Sexual Harassment Case

by Dina Lassow, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

After five years, Lisa Simpson, a young woman who filed a major sexual harassment suit against the University of Colorado, is finally getting the justice and closure she deserves. The Center participated in the case, and we are very excited about the settlement.

Under the settlement, the university will pay Lisa Simpson $2.5 million, hire a new counselor for its Office of Victim’s Assistance, and appoint an independent, outside Title IX advisor who will be available to all individuals reporting sexual harassment or assault. The advisor will also make recommendations to the university regarding reforms to university programs to prevent future sexual harassment.

For the Center, this is what such legal battles are all about. Not only did Ms. Simpson get long-overdue justice, but the terms of the settlement should make the university a safer place for all its students, and should be a wake-up call for other schools to take claims of sexual harassment seriously.

As we have described before, Ms. Simpson and another student sued the University of Colorado under Title IX, charging that they were raped at a football recruiting party in December 2001. They claimed that the university had ignored many incidents of sexual harassment in its football program over the years.

This historic settlement was reached soon after the entire Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit refused the university’s request that it review the great decision of the court’s panel finding that Ms. Simpson and her co-plaintiff were entitled to present their case to a jury.

We salute Lisa Simpson for her courageous persistence and the university for its willingness to undertake structural reforms of its programs. The settlement is a victory not only for Lisa, but for all students who can take heart from the message of this case: the law means what it says and schools must take the steps necessary to protect their students from sexual harassment and assault.

Tenth Circuit Does the Right Thing — Again

by Dina Lassow, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

A few weeks ago, we told you about a great decision from the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that finally allows (now former) students at the University of Colorado to have a jury hear their case that they were sexually assaulted at a football recruiting party. The University responded to the decision — which found that the plaintiffs had presented evidence sufficient to show that CU had an official policy condoning sexual harassment in the football program — by asking all the judges of the Circuit to rehear the case. We are happy to report that the court has denied the university’s request, and that the case can proceed. Hopefully, the district court will do the right thing when the case comes back to it.

The Supreme Court Does Right by Women – For a Change

by Dina Lassow, Senior Counsel
National Women's Law Center

The Supreme Court has done its share of cutting back on women’s rights, most recently by telling Lilly Ledbetter that she was too late to file her pay discrimination claim.  But this week, the Court did the right thing by allowing a female athlete who claims sexual harassment by her coach to have her day in court.

The Women’s World Cup is Underway!

by Dina Lassow, Senior Counsel
National Women's Law Center

You wouldn’t necessarily know it from our nation’s newspapers and TV stations, but the U.S. national women’s soccer team stands to make sports history – again.  The team has made it to the semi-finals in the World Cup tournament now being played in China.  The remaining veteran on the team is Kristine Lilly, playing in her fifth World Cup.  The other players of her generation, the “Title IX babies” who include Brandi Chastain, Julie Foudy and Mia Hamm -- all strong supporters of the law that made their careers possible -- are now retired, although Julie Foudy is in the broadcasting booth.

We owe it to the outstanding athletes on the team to give them the attention and publicity afforded to male athletes.  But the press has not measured up.  For example, a 2002 study found that Sports Illustrated provided only 10% of its coverage to female athletes.

We should all be urging the media to give women’s sports the coverage they deserve.  But in the meantime, we can enjoy the exciting games!  The U.S will face Brazil on Thursday, September 27th, in a game that will be broadcast live at 7:55 am.  The other semi-final is between Germany and Norway, and will be broadcast on Wednesday, September 26th, also at 7:55 am.  The Consolation (third-place) Game will be on Sunday, September 30th at 4:55 am, with the  Championship Game following at 7:55 am (TIVOs and VCRs will be handy.)  All games are on ESPN2. So, watch the games and support our team!

For a Change, Justice Is Done

by Dina Lassow

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed a terrible decision of the district court, and ruled that the plaintiffs in a long-running Title IX sexual harassment case, Simpson v. University of Colorado, are entitled to have their day in court.

Plaintiffs seek to hold the University of Colorado responsible for rapes that they charge occurred at a football recruiting party back in December 2001.  Even though the district court assumed in its decision that the gang rapes had occurred, it dismissed the case in March 2005, ruling that, as a matter of law, the plaintiffs could not prove that the University should be held responsible for the sexual assaults.  In overturning the lower court, the 10th Circuit found that the plaintiffs had presented ample evidence from which a jury could conclude that the University had an official policy of showing high school football recruits a “good time” on their visits to campus, and that the sexual assaults were caused by the University’s failure to provide adequate supervision to prevent the obvious risks of sexual misconduct.  Therefore, it remanded the case for trial in the district court.

The National Women’s Law Center is part of the legal team representing Lisa Simpson, using its Title IX expertise to assist counsel in Boulder, Colorado. Under Title IX, institutions have an obligation to ensure that sexual harassment is not a part of federally funded education programs or activities.  The law makes clear that institutions must take steps to prevent harassment and must act promptly and appropriately when harassment does occur – including by investigating complaints and taking steps to end the harassing conduct.  Hopefully, this decision will make them take that responsibility more seriously.

Denying Equal Pay is Not Enough

Goodyear Insists that Lilly Ledbetter Pay Its Court Costs

by Dina Lassow

We’ve told you about Lilly Ledbetter, the manager in the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Plant who sued for discrimination because she was being paid less than all the male managers.  The jury agreed with her, and awarded her over $3 million in damages.  The judge had to reduce that award to about $360,000, because of the caps on damages in Title VII, the employment discrimination law under which Ledbetter sued.  Then, the Supreme Court took even that money away, saying that she had filed her case too late – even though she was still receiving discriminatorily reduced paychecks when she brought her claim.   

Now, Goodyear has added insult to injury.  Not only did Goodyear deny Ledbetter an equal salary for most of the 19 years she worked there – it has now asked her to pay its costs for defending against her claim that she was entitled to fair pay.  Goodyear has written to Ledbetter’s lawyer, reminding him that the court said it could seek reimbursement of about $3000 in legal costs from Ledbetter and asking that the check be made out to The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. 

Odd.  At the Congressional hearing on legislation to overturn the Ledbetter decision, the witness who testified on behalf of employers kept telling the Congressmen how willing Goodyear and other employers would have been to address Ledbetter’s discriminatory pay had she only brought the problem to their attention.  She did that – and now she’s the one who has to pay.  That sure doesn’t speak well of employers’ desire to fix problems.  Instead, it speaks volumes about the need for Congress to weigh in and make sure that women like Lilly Ledbetter don’t have to rely on their employers’ good will and have the right to challenge pay discrimination in court. 

The Supreme Court Got It Wrong - Can Congress Make It Right?

by Dina Lassow

As we’ve previously discussed, on May 29, 2007, the Supreme Court issued a decision that severely weakens remedies for employees who have faced pay discrimination.  The case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., was decided 5-4, with Justice Alito writing the decision.  Justice Ginsburg took the unusual step of announcing her strong dissent in the courtroom.

Lilly Ledbetter, one of the very few women supervisors at the Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Alabama, had faced sexual harassment at the plant, and her boss had told her that he didn’t think a woman should be working in a tire plant.  She suspected that she was getting fewer and lower pay raises than the male supervisors.  But, Goodyear did not allow its employees to discuss their pay, and Ms. Ledbetter had no proof until she received an anonymous note with the salaries of three of the male managers.  Then she filed a complaint with the EEOC.  Her case went to trial, and the jury awarded her backpay, about $4,700 for mental anguish and over $3 million in punitive damages.  Because of limits on damages in Title VII, the court had to cut her damages to about $360,000.  But, the Supreme Court took even those damages away, holding that she had filed her case too long after the company unlawfully decided to pay her less—even though Ledbetter continued to receive discriminatorily low paychecks because of the earlier decisions.

The good news is that the Supreme Court’s decision was based on its interpretation of Title VII—meaning that Congress can tell the Court that it got it wrong.

The Supreme Court Gets It Wrong - Again

by Dina Lassow

Once again, the Supreme Court has delivered a blow to women—this time courtesy of an opinion written by Justice Alito that limits women’s ability to challenge pay discrimination against them.  In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Justice Alito, writing for a slim majority in a 5-4 decision, said that Lilly Ledbetter should not have been able to sue to challenge the proven sex-based pay discrimination for which a jury had awarded her damages under Title VII.  She had lost that right because she had not challenged her lower pay soon enough after the discrimination began—even though she continued to be paid less than her male colleagues by escalating amount, with every paycheck she got.

This result is tremendously damaging to women—and, indeed, to all who are subject to discrimination in pay.  It also ignores the realities of the workplace.  Women may not initially know that they are being paid less than men; in fact, some employers bar employees from discussing their paychecks with their colleagues.  Even if women do know and are suspicious of the reasons they are paid less, they may want to try to work it and not to immediately take their employers to court.

The consequences of pay discrimination are profound.