译者｜何汛 对外经济贸易大学本科
审稿｜孙济民 中国人民大学
         Peipei Bristol Law   
编辑｜马聪 BU LL.M.
责编｜陈远航 美国西北大学LL.M.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire&Rubber Company
莱德贝特诉固特异轮胎公司
金斯伯格大法官异议意见：
To show how far the Court has strayed from the interpretation of Title VII with fidelity to the Act’s core purpose, I return to the evidence Ledbetter presented at trial. Ledbetter proved to the jury the following: She was a member of a protected class; she performed work substantially equal to work of the dominant class (men); she was compensated less for that work; and the disparity was attributable to gender-based discrimination. 
为了说明法院在解释《民权法案》第七章时偏离了忠实于该法的核心目的，我再来看看莱德贝特在审判中提出的证据。莱德贝特向陪审团证明了以下几点：她是受保护群体的成员；她所从事的工作与主导群体（男性）的工作基本相同；她所从事的工作得到的报酬较少；而且这种差异可归因于基于性别的歧视。
Specifically, Ledbetter’s evidence demonstrated that her current pay was discriminatorily low due to a long series of decisions reflecting Goodyear’s pervasive discrimination against women managers in general and Ledbetter in particular. Ledbetter’s former supervisor, for example, admitted to the jury that Ledbetter’s pay, during a particular one-year period, fell below Goodyear’s minimum threshold for her position.   App. 93–97. Although Goodyear claimed the pay disparity was due to poor performance, the supervisor acknowledged that Ledbetter received a “Top Performance Award” in   1996. Id., at 90–93. The jury also heard testimony that another supervisor—who evaluated Ledbetter in *660 1997 and whose evaluation led to her most recent raise denial—was openly biased against women. Id., at 46, 77–82. And two women who had previously worked as managers at the plant told the jury they had been subject to pervasive discrimination and were paid less than their male counterparts. One was paid less than the men she supervised. Id., at 51–68. Ledbetter herself testified about the discriminatory animus conveyed to her by plant officials. Toward the end of   her career, for instance, the plant manager told Ledbetter that the “plant did not need women, that [women] didn’t help   it, [and] caused problems.” Id., at   36.10 After weighing all the evidence, the jury found for Ledbetter, concluding that the pay disparity was due to intentional discrimination.
具体而言，莱德贝特的证据表明，她目前的工资是歧视性的低工资，而这是由一系列反映了固特异公司对女性管理人员的普遍歧视，以及对莱德贝特的个人歧视所导致的结果。例如，莱德贝特的前主管向陪审团承认，她的工资在某一年期间低于固特异公司对其职位划定的最低薪酬标准。虽然固特异轮胎公司声称薪酬差距是由于业绩不佳造成的，但公司主管承认莱德贝特在1996年获得了“最佳业绩奖”。陪审团还听取了另一位公开对女性有偏见的主管的证词。这位主管在1997年对莱德贝特进行了评估，而他的评估导致了她最近的加薪被拒绝。两名曾在该厂担任经理的妇女告诉陪审团，她们受到了普遍的歧视，且工资比男同事低；其中一位的工资比她的男性下属的工资还要低。莱德贝特本人就工厂管理层向她传达的歧视性敌意作了证。例如，在她的职业生涯即将结束时，工厂经理告诉莱德贝特，“工厂不需要女性，（女性）对工厂没有帮助，（而且）会造成问题”。在权衡所有证据后，陪审团认定莱德贝特胜诉，认为薪酬差异是由于故意歧视造成的。
Yet, under the Court’s decision, the discrimination Ledbetter proved is not redressable under Title VII. Each and every pay decision she did not immediately challenge wiped the slate clean. Consideration may not be given to the cumulative effect of a series of decisions that, together, set her pay well below that of every male area manager. Knowingly carrying past pay **2188 discrimination forward must be treated as lawful conduct. Ledbetter may not be compensated for the lower pay she was in fact receiving when she complained to the EEOC. Nor, were she still employed by Goodyear, could she gain, on the proof she presented at trial, injunctive relief requiring, prospectively, her receipt of the same compensation men receive for substantially similar work. The Court’s approbation of these consequences is totally at odds with the robust protection against workplace discrimination Congress intended Title VII to secure. See, e.g., Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S., at 348, 97 S.Ct. 1843 (“The primary purpose of Title VII was to assure equality of employment opportunities and to eliminate ... discriminatory practices *661 and devices ... .” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975) (“It is ... the purpose of Title VII to make persons whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful employment discrimination.”).
然而，根据法院的判决，莱德贝特所证明的歧视是无法根据《民权法案》第七章进行救济的。她没有立即提出异议的每一项薪酬决定都一笔勾销了。（法院）不应考虑一系列使她的薪酬远远低于每个男性地区经理的薪酬的决定的累积效应。在明知的情况下接受过往的薪酬**2188歧视应当被视为合法的行为。莱德贝特在向平等就业机会委员会投诉时，可能无法获得实际工资较低的补偿。如果她仍然受雇于固特异轮胎公司，根据她在审判中提出的证据，她也不能获得禁令救济，要求她在未来获得与从事本质上较为类似的工作的男性相同的报酬。法院对这些后果的认可，完全不符合国会通过第七章立法所期望实现的、对工作场所歧视的有力保护。例如，见Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S., at 348, 97 S.Ct. 1843 (“第七章的主要目的是确保就业机会的平等和消除...歧视性做法*661和手段...”。(内部引号省略）；Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody，422 U.S.405，418，95 S.Ct.2362，45 L.Ed.2d 280（1975）（“第七章的目的是...使人们因非法就业歧视而遭受的伤害得到补偿。”）。
This is not the first time the Court has ordered a cramped interpretation of Title VII, incompatible with the statute’s broad remedial purpose. See supra, at 2183 – 2184. See also Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 109 S.Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989) (superseded in part by the Civil Rights Act of 1991); Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989) (plurality opinion) (same); 1 B. Lindemann & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 2 (3d ed. 1996) (“A spate of Court decisions in the late 1980s drew congressional fire and resulted in demands for legislative change[,]” culminating in the 1991 Civil Rights Act (footnote omitted)). Once again, the ball is in Congress’ court. As in 1991, the Legislature may act to correct this Court’s parsimonious reading of Title VII.
这并不是法院第一次下令对第七章进行狭义的解释，而这与法规的广泛补救目的不相符。见上文，第2183-2184页。另见Wards Cove Packing Co.v.Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 109 S.Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989)（部分被1991年民权法案取代）；Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2 d 268 (1989)（多数意见）（同上）；1 B. Lindemann & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 2 (3d ed. 1996)（“20世纪80年代末法院的一系列裁决引起了国会的不满，并导致了对立法变革的要求”最终导致了1991年的《民权法案》（脚注省略））。再一次，又轮到国会进行决策了。与1991年一样，立法机构可以采取行动纠正本法院对第七章的狭义解读。
在金斯伯格大法官成为最高法院大法官后，在男女薪资差异问题上产生重大影响的案件是“莱德贝特诉固特异轮胎公司案”（Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company），这是金斯伯格大法官第一次当庭宣读异见书，该案使金斯伯格备受瞩目，在判决之后，为了响应金斯伯格的异议书，2007年，美国国会里的民主党议员提交了莉莉·莱德贝特公平薪酬法（Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act）的议案，但是当时共和党一直对这项议案加以阻挠。随着奥巴马当选总统和民主党控制参众两院，该议案于2009年1月又重新进入立法程序，并被参众两院通过，奥巴马总统在2009年1月29日签署该法案，这也是他签署的第一个法案。这大大改善了美国女性在薪资方面广泛受到歧视的境况。
继续阅读
阅读原文
关键词
法院
v.
to the
S.Ct
判例