she took her case to the eeoc. the obama administration got behind her.hey went to court, and the obama administration argued that the eeoc, the government should decide for religious institutions who were religious workers and who weren't religious workers, taking this away from the authorities of those churches and those religious organizations and arguing that a -- a religious institution has no more special protection under the first amendment than a country club. their position was so radical that they got a 9-0 vote against them in the supreme court. even justice soitomoyaor and kagan voted against them. and they said in his opinion remarkable. that there would be no special protections for religion in the first amendment since religion is mentioned twice. now the hhs mandate is another example of secularism. they want to take us from the broad uplands of religious freedom down to a valley of freedom worship. as was pointed out to ourselves. they will let us do that. religious freedom involves the ability to be obedient to be salt and be light and s

and although some federal courts in the eeoc have interpreted over the past ten years title 7 of the civil rights act as addressing parts of this problem, the law under that statute remains uncertain and developing. what we need is a clear federal prohibition of discrimination against lgbt individuals, and that's what the employment and nondiscrimination act would accomplish. enda would respond to these problems by doing nothing more than extend to go sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination the same basic legal structure this country has applied for nearly 50 years to other forms of employment discrimination. the bill takes its operative provisions directly from the brought active provisions of title 7, and the experience that employers have developed over the past five decades in complying with those provisions, the case law that courts have developed, the guidance the eeoc has provided will inform and guide and ease compliance with enda. one of the title 7 provisions that enda incorporates is one that i know has garnered a great deal of discussion in the past on this

she filed charges of discrimination with the eeoc and eventually the agency awarded her back pay and damage. the supreme court filed her claim too late. it was incumbent on her, the court said, to file reports of christmas nation. any annual pay decision not contested within 180 days, the court ruled became grand fathered beyond the title 7 of repair. >> a case that can't be made when somebody has been on the job and ginobili good performance records for 20 years, but if you wait until your case is fully baked, when the disparity is steady and large enough to enable you to mount a winnable case, you will be cut off for suing too late. that situation i urged could not have been what congress intended. the ball is now back in congress's court with the bottom line, the legislature may act to collect the court's posthumous reading of title vrk ii. the court's first opinion of the current term did not receive similar notice. it was title cavasso versus smith. shirley b smith, abysmally represented at her trial was convicted of shaking her 7 week old grandson to death. her sentence, 15 yea

she filed charges of discrimination with the eeoc. eventually, a jury result her suit, favorably awarding her back pay and damages. the supreme court nullified the verdict, that she filed her claim to late. it was incumbent upon her to file charges of discrimination each time she failed to file suit each time goodyear discriminated against her. it became grandfathered beyond the province of title 7 to repair. the court's ruling ignored real world employment practices, the practice is title 7 was meant to govern. sue early on was the majority's council when he may not know that men are receiving more for the same work. the defense had nothing to do with her gender. she just did not do the job as well. a case that cannot be made when somebody has been on the job, getting good performance ratings for 20 years. if you wait until a case is fully based, when the disparity is steady and large enough to enable you to mount a winnable case, you will be cut off for suing too late. that situation, i urge, could not have been what congress intend

she filed charges of discrimination with the eeoc and eventually adjuring resolved her title 7 rights, favorably awarding her back pay and damages. the supreme court nullified the verdict. lilly ledbetter filed her claim too late, the court held. the court said it was incumbent on her to file charges of discrimination each time goodyear fail to increase her salary commensurate with the salaries of her male peers. in annual pay decision not contested within 180 days, the court ruled, became grandfathered beyond title seven to repair. wrote fors ruling, i the dissenters, ignored real world practices, t that title seven was meant to govern. men are receiving more for the same work and she might not have known that you would likely lose such a case because the defense would say that it had nothing to do with her gender, she just did not do the job as well. a case that cannot be made when somebody has been on the job giving good performance -- getting good performance ratings 20 years it. but if you wait until your case is fully baked, then the disparity is steady and large enough to enabl

. >> in three month's time, even the german eeoc. >> is that a reasonable argument? out that. >> then, there is the yields in japan, mind blowing, right? >> if you have that 20 year chart, what i would like to say is we have not been over 2% in 14 years, since 1997. what good has it done them. creating jobs. and last but not least,

one woman did and believed that it was illegal, and she called the eeoc and they said yes, it is. were organizing, newsweek decided to do a cover story. the story was -- [inaudible] it is picked up in italy and london and it made a big/. >> how long did the situation last? >> well, immediately -- and then we saw again in 1972. the first lawyer was eleanor holmes norton who is now the first congresswoman from the district of colombia. her lawyers to negotiate with us. that was joke alfano who ended up being the terry of atw. we settled in the spring of 73 and they promised again to higher and promote. at this time, we had a golden timetable. we had a third of the writers and reporters to be women and a third of the researchers to be men. >> what was your result? >> in august of 1975, i was promoted to senior editor. i was the first woman senior editor. it is a story about a group of good girls, a group of women who were raised in the 1940s and 1950s, who came of age in the 60s and had these questions, and ultimately challenged all the things that we were raised to believe of what t

she filed charges of discrimination with the eeoc. eventually, a jury result her suit, favorably awarding her back pay and damages. the supreme court nullified the verdict, that she filed her claim to late. it was incumbent upon her to file charges of discrimination each time she failed to file suit each time goodyear discriminated against her. it became grandfathered beyond the province of title 7 to repair. ignored realuling world employment practices, the practice is title 7 was meant to govern. sue early on was the majority's council when he may not know that men are receiving more for the same work. the defense had nothing to do with her gender. she just did not do the job as well. a case that cannot be made when somebody has been on the job, getting good performance ratings for 20 years. if you wait until a case is fully based, when the disparity is steady and large enough to enable you to mount a winnable case, you will be cut off for suing too late. that situation, i urge, could not have been what congress intended. the legisl

. >> now let's go to eeoc who has just come out with that thought piece about diplomas that if you ask somebody if they have a high school diploma -- you've seen this piece -- and you then don't hire them, you're discriminating. so now what a company is going to do, they're not going to ask. >> we're on the same page. >> i'm not criticizing. i just bring these up to you so we can chat. these are the things that are going on every day. >> they add up. >> they add up. >> you add all the other uncertainty together. something andrew and i have been kicking back and forth -- >> that's why we're not taking off in my opinion, all those things. >> something we've been kicking back and forth, andrew, and i don't know where jack comes down on this, the financial crisis we just went through is pressurefr >> -- in everyone's mind and that's where the belief is it's been a subpar recovery. >> do you remember '80, '82. unemployment was much myer, inflation was much higher. >> prime rate! >> mortgages were 17%. oil had gone from $10 a barrel -- it didn't just double, it went up five times in value. w