...in general, the main purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide if a law contradicts some aspect of the Constitution.
That's usually true, but not in this case, which was about a statute, not a Constitutional provision.
The case in question was one in which a woman sued her employer of 19 years, Goodyear Tire, for discrimination after discovering that she had been underpaid relative to her coworkers for much of that time. Despite having had no way to know about the discrimination until she discovered it, the case was eventually thrown out by the Supreme Court.
The plaintiff argued that since the discrimination was ongoing, the Statute of Limitations should run from the last paycheck she received. Goodyear argued that it should run from when she claims the discrimination started, which would mean she would have had to file the case 6 months after she was hired, when she had no way to know that she was being discriminated against.
Despite the absurdity of reading the Statute this way (effectively hamstringing people from getting redress under the statute), the Court (in a 5-4 decision) threw out the case saying that since the statute of limitations was in their eyes ambiguous, it should be read to apply here. This despite ample indications that Congress had no such intentions when they passed the law. (So much for Scalia's vaunted strict constructionism.)
Since the case was only the Court's interpretation of a statute, Congress can fix the law by clarifying that the intent of the Statute of Limitations is that it should not apply to cases of ongoing discrimination, which a bill currently before Congress would do.
no subject
That's usually true, but not in this case, which was about a statute, not a Constitutional provision.
The case in question was one in which a woman sued her employer of 19 years, Goodyear Tire, for discrimination after discovering that she had been underpaid relative to her coworkers for much of that time. Despite having had no way to know about the discrimination until she discovered it, the case was eventually thrown out by the Supreme Court.
The plaintiff argued that since the discrimination was ongoing, the Statute of Limitations should run from the last paycheck she received. Goodyear argued that it should run from when she claims the discrimination started, which would mean she would have had to file the case 6 months after she was hired, when she had no way to know that she was being discriminated against.
Despite the absurdity of reading the Statute this way (effectively hamstringing people from getting redress under the statute), the Court (in a 5-4 decision) threw out the case saying that since the statute of limitations was in their eyes ambiguous, it should be read to apply here. This despite ample indications that Congress had no such intentions when they passed the law. (So much for Scalia's vaunted strict constructionism.)
Since the case was only the Court's interpretation of a statute, Congress can fix the law by clarifying that the intent of the Statute of Limitations is that it should not apply to cases of ongoing discrimination, which a bill currently before Congress would do.