Words vs. Deeds in Equal Employment Opportunity
The Letter of the Law
by Anne Versteen
1. In 1979, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Gadsden, Alabama, hired Lilly Ledbetter: She worked long hours as an overnight supervisor on the late shift from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. and labored alongside men for nearly 20 years, doing the same work as they did for the company.
2. By the time she was ready to retire in 1998, Ledbetter was earning $3,727 per month. She had no idea what the men were making in comparison to her until shortly before her retirement. As her last days on the job drew near, she learned that her male counterparts, who held her same position and worked the same job, were all being paid substantially more than she was. They made between 54,286 and $5,236 per month. Company policy prohibited employees from speaking to one another about pay, so Ledbetter had not known all those years that her wages were less than those of her male equivalents.
3. Understandably, Ledbetter felt cheated and filed a complaint against Goodyear with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Then she sued the company for gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that the company had given her a low salary because of her gender. Goodyear denied her allegations, stating that Ledbetter was paid less because the quality of her work was poor. A jury awarded Ledbetter $3.6 million. Even though the amount was reduced to $300,000 by a district court, she had still won a monumental case for the cause of women everywhere.
4. Good year appealed and the 2007 employment discrimination case Ledbetter v. Goodyear eventually reached the Supreme Court, The Court ruled by A 5-4 vote that Ledbetter's claim was time-barred by Title VII's limitations period. Title VII holds discriminatory intent or the deliberate act of causing harm, as a crucial element of a claim, and Ledbetter would have needed to file within 180 days of a discriminatory salary decision to fall within the alloted time period. The court did not consider it relevant that the paychecks Ledbetter received within 180 days before her claim were affected by past discrimination. Unfortunately, each instance of Goodyear’s discriminatory intent fell outside the limitation period
5. The Court stated that the short statute of limitations, the period of time an employee has to file a complaint against the employer, is intended to ensure quick resolution or pay. Such instances become more difficult to defend as time passes. If the Court had accepted Ledbetter's argument, the decision would have allowed discriminatory pay decisions from years ago to be the subject of Title VII claims, In dissent. Justice Ruth Bader Ginshury clearly sided with Ledbetter, calling the majority's ruling a cramped interpretation of Title VII, incompatible with the statute's broad..
Based on information from both the article and the letter to the editor, what can the reader infer about the authors?
- A. Both authors feel they have personally paid a price as women in the workplace.
- B. Both authors advocate for legal action to reduce pay inequity.
- C. Both authors support reforms to help women gain equality in the workplace
- D. Both authors want businesses to be leaders in ending pay inequality
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
The inference that both authors support reforms to help women gain equality in the workplace is substantiated by their discussions on systemic barriers and the need for change. They emphasize the importance of addressing inequalities through actionable reforms rather than merely highlighting personal experiences or advocating for legal action alone. Option A is incorrect because while personal experiences may be mentioned, the focus is on broader reforms rather than individual sacrifices. Option B misinterprets their stance; the authors promote change rather than specifically advocating for legal actions. Option D, while relevant, is too narrow, as their emphasis is on comprehensive reforms rather than solely on business leadership.
The inference that both authors support reforms to help women gain equality in the workplace is substantiated by their discussions on systemic barriers and the need for change. They emphasize the importance of addressing inequalities through actionable reforms rather than merely highlighting personal experiences or advocating for legal action alone. Option A is incorrect because while personal experiences may be mentioned, the focus is on broader reforms rather than individual sacrifices. Option B misinterprets their stance; the authors promote change rather than specifically advocating for legal actions. Option D, while relevant, is too narrow, as their emphasis is on comprehensive reforms rather than solely on business leadership.
Other Related Questions
Based on information in 'The Letter of the Law,' why did Lilly Ledbetter lose her employment discrimination case against Goodyear?
- A. The Supreme Court decided that Goodyear could keep employees such as Ledbetter from comparing salaries
- B. Ledbetter could not refute Goodyear's claim that she was paid less because she performed poorly.
- C. The Supreme Court ruled against Ledbetter because she filed her case after the allotted period of time.
- D. Ledbetter could not provide sufficient evidence that had been paid less than her male equivalents.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
Lilly Ledbetter lost her case primarily because she filed her claim after the statutory deadline, which the Supreme Court upheld. This ruling emphasized the importance of timely reporting of discrimination claims. Option A is incorrect as the Court did not rule on salary comparisons but focused on the filing timeline. Option B misrepresents the case; Ledbetter's performance was not the central issue. Option D is misleading; while evidence was discussed, the primary reason for the ruling was the timing of her complaint, not the sufficiency of evidence regarding pay disparities.
Lilly Ledbetter lost her case primarily because she filed her claim after the statutory deadline, which the Supreme Court upheld. This ruling emphasized the importance of timely reporting of discrimination claims. Option A is incorrect as the Court did not rule on salary comparisons but focused on the filing timeline. Option B misrepresents the case; Ledbetter's performance was not the central issue. Option D is misleading; while evidence was discussed, the primary reason for the ruling was the timing of her complaint, not the sufficiency of evidence regarding pay disparities.
Which assumption does the author of 'Letter to the Editor: Local Foods' make?
- A. Consumers were not shopping at the market.
- B. Local authorities had something to do with the market closing.
- C. The market has moved to another location.
- D. Local farmers have stopped producing food for the market.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
The assumption that local authorities had something to do with the market closing is supported by the author’s focus on community involvement and potential policy impacts. This suggests a belief that local governance plays a role in the market's viability. Option A is incorrect as it does not directly address the reasons for the market's closure. Option C is also inaccurate since the letter implies a definitive closure rather than relocation. Lastly, option D assumes a cessation of local farming, which is not indicated in the text; the focus is on the market's operation rather than production levels.
The assumption that local authorities had something to do with the market closing is supported by the author’s focus on community involvement and potential policy impacts. This suggests a belief that local governance plays a role in the market's viability. Option A is incorrect as it does not directly address the reasons for the market's closure. Option C is also inaccurate since the letter implies a definitive closure rather than relocation. Lastly, option D assumes a cessation of local farming, which is not indicated in the text; the focus is on the market's operation rather than production levels.
How does Anthony respond to conflicting viewpoints about Universal Suffrage?
- A. by revealing the many challenges that were overcome to build the nation
- B. by referring to the principles on which the country was founded
- C. by pointing out the revolutionary changes that equality would inspire
- D. by explaining the benefits related to property holders and taxation
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
Anthony addresses conflicting viewpoints about Universal Suffrage by referring to the foundational principles of equality and democracy upon which the country was established. This approach emphasizes the moral and ethical basis for suffrage, reinforcing the idea that all citizens deserve a voice in governance. Option A is incorrect as it focuses on historical challenges rather than the core principles of democracy. Option C, while relevant, highlights the potential outcomes of equality rather than the philosophical grounding needed for suffrage. Option D incorrectly centers on economic benefits for a specific group, which diverges from the broader argument for universal rights.
Anthony addresses conflicting viewpoints about Universal Suffrage by referring to the foundational principles of equality and democracy upon which the country was established. This approach emphasizes the moral and ethical basis for suffrage, reinforcing the idea that all citizens deserve a voice in governance. Option A is incorrect as it focuses on historical challenges rather than the core principles of democracy. Option C, while relevant, highlights the potential outcomes of equality rather than the philosophical grounding needed for suffrage. Option D incorrectly centers on economic benefits for a specific group, which diverges from the broader argument for universal rights.
What statement expresses a central theme of the excerpt?
- A. Disagreements can strain even the closest relationships
- B. Cooperative relationships allow people to grow to their full potential.
- C. Children bring strife that challenges bonds in a relationship.
- D. People in lasting relationships can still surprise each other.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
The statement that people in lasting relationships can still surprise each other captures the essence of enduring connections, highlighting the dynamic nature of relationships where individuals continue to evolve and reveal new facets of themselves. Option A, while true, focuses more on conflict rather than the positive surprises that can occur. Option B emphasizes growth but does not specifically address the element of surprise in relationships. Option C suggests that children create challenges, which may be valid but does not reflect the overarching theme of ongoing discovery within relationships.
The statement that people in lasting relationships can still surprise each other captures the essence of enduring connections, highlighting the dynamic nature of relationships where individuals continue to evolve and reveal new facets of themselves. Option A, while true, focuses more on conflict rather than the positive surprises that can occur. Option B emphasizes growth but does not specifically address the element of surprise in relationships. Option C suggests that children create challenges, which may be valid but does not reflect the overarching theme of ongoing discovery within relationships.