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 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.
Other Related Questions
With him she bravely threw off the British yoke, felt every pulsation of his heart for freedom, and inspired the glowing eloquence that maintained it through the century.' How would replacing the word 'yoke' with the word 'governance' affect the meaning of this sentence?
- A. it would add urgency for Americans to replace British laws with more republican ones
- B. it would strengthen the legitimacy of the American cause against the British.
- C. it would shift the blame for starting war from the British to the early Americans.
- D. it would weaken the idea that the British acted like masters of the Americans.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
Replacing "yoke" with "governance" would weaken the idea that the British acted like masters of the Americans. "Yoke" conveys oppression and subjugation, emphasizing the burden imposed by British rule. In contrast, "governance" suggests a more neutral or structured form of authority, diminishing the sense of tyranny inherent in the original term. Option A misinterprets the context, as urgency is not directly related to the term change. Option B incorrectly assumes that "governance" would enhance legitimacy, which it wouldn't. Option C wrongly shifts blame, as the focus remains on British oppression rather than American actions.
Replacing "yoke" with "governance" would weaken the idea that the British acted like masters of the Americans. "Yoke" conveys oppression and subjugation, emphasizing the burden imposed by British rule. In contrast, "governance" suggests a more neutral or structured form of authority, diminishing the sense of tyranny inherent in the original term. Option A misinterprets the context, as urgency is not directly related to the term change. Option B incorrectly assumes that "governance" would enhance legitimacy, which it wouldn't. Option C wrongly shifts blame, as the focus remains on British oppression rather than American actions.
Read this sentence from paragraph 1. 'People know that landfills are a disgusting, if necessary, evil and that they spread disease and pestilence throughout populated communities.' The reasoning in this sentence is unsound because it claims something is true simply because
- A. it has not been proven false.
- B. experts say it is.
- C. a popular opinion makes it correct.
- D. it has always been that way.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
The reasoning in the sentence is flawed because it relies on the idea that widespread belief or popular opinion validates a claim. Just because many people think landfills are harmful does not inherently make it true; it requires scientific evidence to support such assertions. Option A is incorrect since the absence of proof does not automatically confirm a statement's validity. Option B is misleading, as expert opinion must be backed by research and data rather than being accepted as fact. Option D is also wrong, as tradition or historical precedent does not guarantee the accuracy of a claim; beliefs must evolve with new evidence.
The reasoning in the sentence is flawed because it relies on the idea that widespread belief or popular opinion validates a claim. Just because many people think landfills are harmful does not inherently make it true; it requires scientific evidence to support such assertions. Option A is incorrect since the absence of proof does not automatically confirm a statement's validity. Option B is misleading, as expert opinion must be backed by research and data rather than being accepted as fact. Option D is also wrong, as tradition or historical precedent does not guarantee the accuracy of a claim; beliefs must evolve with new evidence.
You have up to 45 minutes for reading, planning, writing, and editing your response.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer:
**Correct answer:** Allocate time wisely among reading, planning, writing, and editing to maximize the quality of your response. **Rationale:** Efficient time management is crucial for producing a well-structured response. Reading thoroughly ensures comprehension of the prompt, while planning helps organize thoughts logically. Writing is where ideas come to life, and dedicating time to editing enhances clarity and correctness. Other options may suggest focusing too heavily on one aspect, such as writing without sufficient planning or editing. This can lead to incomplete or unclear responses that fail to meet the task's requirements. Balancing all phases is essential for success.
**Correct answer:** Allocate time wisely among reading, planning, writing, and editing to maximize the quality of your response. **Rationale:** Efficient time management is crucial for producing a well-structured response. Reading thoroughly ensures comprehension of the prompt, while planning helps organize thoughts logically. Writing is where ideas come to life, and dedicating time to editing enhances clarity and correctness. Other options may suggest focusing too heavily on one aspect, such as writing without sufficient planning or editing. This can lead to incomplete or unclear responses that fail to meet the task's requirements. Balancing all phases is essential for success.
How does the use of the phrase 'put on a thin veneer' in paragraph 3 shape the author's argument in the article?
- A. The phrase implies that other companies are misunderstood, while the Gregory brothers are given too much praise.
- B. The phrase indicates that other companies ignore community concerns, while the Gregory brothers do not.
- C. The phrase suggests that other companies pretend to be conscientious, while the Gregory brothers are sincere.
- D. The phrase helps explain how other companies fight their legal battles, while the Gregory brothers do not.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
The phrase "put on a thin veneer" suggests superficiality, indicating that other companies may feign concern for community issues without genuine commitment. This contrasts with the Gregory brothers, who are portrayed as sincere in their efforts. Option A misinterprets the phrase, as it does not suggest misunderstanding or excessive praise. Option B inaccurately implies that the focus is solely on community concerns, neglecting the theme of authenticity. Option D incorrectly connects the phrase to legal battles, diverting from the core idea of sincerity versus pretense.
The phrase "put on a thin veneer" suggests superficiality, indicating that other companies may feign concern for community issues without genuine commitment. This contrasts with the Gregory brothers, who are portrayed as sincere in their efforts. Option A misinterprets the phrase, as it does not suggest misunderstanding or excessive praise. Option B inaccurately implies that the focus is solely on community concerns, neglecting the theme of authenticity. Option D incorrectly connects the phrase to legal battles, diverting from the core idea of sincerity versus pretense.