Pry. And don't wait. If you have a wage discrimination grievance, act right away.

That's the message sent to workers, including older or disabled workers and especially women, last week in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision on pay disparities, according to legal experts. The court's 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Inc., severely reduces a worker's window for filing a wage discrimination claim—to 300 days of first discovering the pay inequity in most states, 180 days in several.

"The impact is that once you suspect or become aware of a possible claim of discrimination of any stripe—whether a denial of promotion or any adverse employment action—you're going to be obliged to move fast," says Paul Mollica, a labor attorney and partner with Meites, Mulder, Mollica and Glink in Chicago. "It's a kick in the side that workers can no longer afford, if they ever could, to sit and wait."

Previously, many courts held that each instance of pay inequity—essentially, each pay check—counts as another example of discrimination that restarts the time clock for making a claim for pay inequity. Workers have been able to sue for wage discrimination extending back years.

Now, Mollica says, workers must begin to inquire with their colleagues right away, almost immediately after they are hired or promoted. "And this runs counter not only to human nature but also to wise human behavior," Mollica says. "It encourages a litigious atmosphere in the workplace."

With the wake-up call to workers, however, come predictions that Congress will likely act quickly to make the Court's decision moot by legislating increases in the time workers have to file claims. The National Employment Lawyers Association in San Francisco announced in a statement that it "will work hard to ensure that Congress holds hearings, makes findings and statutorily overturns the Court's new limitations rule."

The case began when Lilly Ledbetter, now 70, learned late in her 20-year career as a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in Gadsden, Ala., that she earned less than the 15 men at the same management level. She sued for wage discrimination, citing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin or sex. Ledbetter, whose initial salary matched that of her male colleagues but increased in smaller increments, won.

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the verdict, holding that her case was filed too late—even though Ledbetter continued to receive discriminatory pay—because the company's original decision on her pay had been made years earlier. The Supreme Court upheld that decision.

Though Ledbetter was based on gender, "the ruling has tremendous significance for older workers, many of whom are AARP members, because lower courts will apply the reasoning of the decision to federal age discrimination law, which closely tracks Title VII," says Thomas Osborne, an AARP Litigation Foundation senior attorney. AARP filed an amicus, or friend of the court, brief on behalf of the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case.

In a vigorous dissent of the majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito Jr., Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the decision would put workers at a disadvantage because those who are underpaid, and know it, may be afraid of "making waves." Ginsburg noted that even a small differential "will expand exponentially over an employee's working life if raises are set as a percentage of prior pay."

Lawyers also said that the decision will ultimately have an impact on workers' retirement pay. That concern, they say, centers on several factors. First, companies often match, to some extent, employees' contributions to 401(k) retirement plans, so an employee who is paid less will accumulate a smaller match, and the disparity will mount over time. In addition, employees also are typically subject to monetary caps on how much they may contribute to a 401(k) plan, based on their pay. So, a lower-paid worker will have made smaller contributions to his or her retirement plan by the end of his working life, Marrero noted.

Emily Sachar, a journalist and an author, lives in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Additional Related Links

Transcript of Ledbetter v. the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (PDF)

United States Supreme Court