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
In this excerpt, the author suggests that Burl needs help
- A. solving a mystery that troubles him.
- B. cleaning out his honey stand.
- C. working at his honey stand.
- D. making personal improvements.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
The excerpt indicates that Burl is experiencing a troubling mystery, which implies a need for assistance in resolving his concerns. Option A accurately reflects this need for help with a specific problem. Option B, cleaning out his honey stand, suggests a task that may not be linked to his emotional or mental state. Option C, working at his honey stand, implies he is capable of managing his responsibilities without external help. Lastly, Option D, making personal improvements, is too vague and does not directly connect to the immediate issue Burl faces, which centers around a mystery rather than personal development.
The excerpt indicates that Burl is experiencing a troubling mystery, which implies a need for assistance in resolving his concerns. Option A accurately reflects this need for help with a specific problem. Option B, cleaning out his honey stand, suggests a task that may not be linked to his emotional or mental state. Option C, working at his honey stand, implies he is capable of managing his responsibilities without external help. Lastly, Option D, making personal improvements, is too vague and does not directly connect to the immediate issue Burl faces, which centers around a mystery rather than personal development.
Currently, the technology exists to meet a significant portion of the world's energy demands by converting wave power to electricity. If the author removed the word 'significant' from this sentence, the new sentence would
- A. show diminished potential for this technology.
- B. allow the reader to infer the importance of the technology.
- C. create a realistic portrayal of the technology.
- D. indicate a greater reliance on the technology.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
Removing the word "significant" diminishes the perceived potential of wave power technology. Without it, the sentence suggests that the technology may only meet a minor portion of energy demands, which undercuts its viability and importance. Option B incorrectly implies that the omission would enhance the reader's understanding of the technology's importance, which is not the case. Option C suggests a realistic portrayal, but the removal leads to a less optimistic view rather than a realistic one. Option D misinterprets the change, as it does not indicate greater reliance; instead, it suggests a lesser impact.
Removing the word "significant" diminishes the perceived potential of wave power technology. Without it, the sentence suggests that the technology may only meet a minor portion of energy demands, which undercuts its viability and importance. Option B incorrectly implies that the omission would enhance the reader's understanding of the technology's importance, which is not the case. Option C suggests a realistic portrayal, but the removal leads to a less optimistic view rather than a realistic one. Option D misinterprets the change, as it does not indicate greater reliance; instead, it suggests a lesser impact.
The rooms were very grand. How would the meaning of this sentence be changed if the word 'grand' were replaced with 'large'?
- A. The sentence would describe the size of the room but not their magnificence.
- B. The sentence would provide information about the historical period in which these rooms were used.
- C. The sentence would offer insight into the particular decorations of the rooms but not the dimensions.
- D. The sentence would refer to the number of people the rooms would accommodate.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
Replacing "grand" with "large" alters the focus of the description. "Grand" conveys a sense of magnificence, elegance, and impressive beauty, while "large" simply indicates size without any connotation of splendor. Thus, option A accurately reflects that the sentence shifts from describing both size and magnificence to solely addressing size. Option B incorrectly suggests a historical context, which isn't implied by either term. Option C misinterprets the focus on decorations rather than size. Option D mistakenly assumes a focus on capacity, which is not relevant to the original meaning about the rooms.
Replacing "grand" with "large" alters the focus of the description. "Grand" conveys a sense of magnificence, elegance, and impressive beauty, while "large" simply indicates size without any connotation of splendor. Thus, option A accurately reflects that the sentence shifts from describing both size and magnificence to solely addressing size. Option B incorrectly suggests a historical context, which isn't implied by either term. Option C misinterprets the focus on decorations rather than size. Option D mistakenly assumes a focus on capacity, which is not relevant to the original meaning about the rooms.
The author of 'The Letter of the Law' has decided to add subheadings to three paragraphs in her article to explain the idea presented in each. Which subheading summarizes which paragraph?
- A. Supreme Court hears Ledbetter v. Goodyear
- B. Salaries favor men over women
- C. Reasoning behind the decision
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B: Paragraph 2, A: Paragraph 4, C Paragraph 5
Subheading B, "Salaries favor men over women," effectively summarizes Paragraph 2, which discusses the gender wage gap and its implications. This aligns with the content's focus on disparities in pay. Subheading A, "Supreme Court hears Ledbetter v. Goodyear," accurately captures Paragraph 4, where the case's background and significance are outlined, emphasizing judicial involvement. Subheading C, "Reasoning behind the decision," pertains to Paragraph 5, which delves into the Court's rationale and legal interpretations regarding the case, clarifying the decision-making process. Each subheading succinctly reflects the core idea of its respective paragraph.
Subheading B, "Salaries favor men over women," effectively summarizes Paragraph 2, which discusses the gender wage gap and its implications. This aligns with the content's focus on disparities in pay. Subheading A, "Supreme Court hears Ledbetter v. Goodyear," accurately captures Paragraph 4, where the case's background and significance are outlined, emphasizing judicial involvement. Subheading C, "Reasoning behind the decision," pertains to Paragraph 5, which delves into the Court's rationale and legal interpretations regarding the case, clarifying the decision-making process. Each subheading succinctly reflects the core idea of its respective paragraph.