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
How does paragraph 1 fit into the narrative structure of the excerpt?
- A. Paragraph 1 establishes the setting and the reason the narrator's family came to the palace.
- B. Paragraph 1 provides details about the narrator's feelings about the events of the evening.
- C. Paragraph 1 includes background about a conflict that arose from the narrator's feelings about fashion.
- D. Paragraph 1 describes the narrator's father and his performance at the concert.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
Paragraph 1 effectively sets the scene by introducing the palace and explaining the family's reason for being there, which is essential for understanding the context of the narrative. This foundational information allows readers to grasp the significance of subsequent events. Option B incorrectly emphasizes the narrator's feelings, which may be explored later but are not the focus of paragraph 1. Option C misinterprets the content by suggesting a conflict related to fashion, which is not established in the opening. Option D mistakenly attributes a focus on the narrator's father and his performance, which may not be addressed in the introductory paragraph.
Paragraph 1 effectively sets the scene by introducing the palace and explaining the family's reason for being there, which is essential for understanding the context of the narrative. This foundational information allows readers to grasp the significance of subsequent events. Option B incorrectly emphasizes the narrator's feelings, which may be explored later but are not the focus of paragraph 1. Option C misinterprets the content by suggesting a conflict related to fashion, which is not established in the opening. Option D mistakenly attributes a focus on the narrator's father and his performance, which may not be addressed in the introductory paragraph.
Which summary best describes the events found in paragraphs 1-4 of the excerpt?
- A. Don Quixote and Sancho seek to make their fortunes, and Don Quixote sees their opportunity when they discover a field of windmills. The field has thirty or forty windmills.
- B. Don Quixote and Sancho came to a field of windmills, which Don Quixote says are giants that he will destroy. Sancho tries to convince Don Quixote these are really windmills.
- C. Don Quixote and Sancho find a field of windmills. Sancho explains to Don Quixote that the wind blows the sails and turns the millstone.
- D. Don Quixote and Sancho discover a field of giants disguised as windmills. Don Quixote vows to defeat the giants, but Sancho is afraid and tries to convince Don Quixote not to fight.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
Option B accurately captures the essence of the events in the first four paragraphs, highlighting Don Quixote's misinterpretation of the windmills as giants and Sancho's attempt to reason with him. This dynamic illustrates the central conflict between reality and illusion. Option A misrepresents the characters' motivations; they are not primarily seeking fortune but rather engaging in a fantastical quest. Option C focuses too much on the mechanics of the windmills, neglecting the dramatic tension between Don Quixote and Sancho. Option D inaccurately frames the windmills as giants rather than emphasizing Don Quixote's delusion, which is critical to understanding the narrative.
Option B accurately captures the essence of the events in the first four paragraphs, highlighting Don Quixote's misinterpretation of the windmills as giants and Sancho's attempt to reason with him. This dynamic illustrates the central conflict between reality and illusion. Option A misrepresents the characters' motivations; they are not primarily seeking fortune but rather engaging in a fantastical quest. Option C focuses too much on the mechanics of the windmills, neglecting the dramatic tension between Don Quixote and Sancho. Option D inaccurately frames the windmills as giants rather than emphasizing Don Quixote's delusion, which is critical to understanding the narrative.
In paragraph 10, Brannick's claims it will minimize noise and traffic that result from the new superstore. Is this claim well supported?
- A. No, because Brannick's provides limited details concerning the plan for controlling congestion.
- B. Yes, because Brannick's recognizes how complex the problems associated with large superstores are.
- C. No, because Brannick's is vague about the number of customers the store might draw from nearby towns.
- D. Yes, because Brannick's explains how it has worked with the city government to resolve the problems.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
Brannick's claim lacks strong support due to insufficient details on congestion control measures. Option A accurately highlights this weakness, indicating that without a clear plan, the assertion remains unsubstantiated. Option B incorrectly suggests that acknowledging complexity equates to effective solutions; recognizing a problem does not provide evidence of a plan. Option C points out vagueness regarding customer numbers, but this alone doesn’t address the specific issue of noise and traffic management. Option D misrepresents Brannick's position, as any collaboration mentioned does not guarantee effective noise or traffic reduction, failing to substantiate the claim.
Brannick's claim lacks strong support due to insufficient details on congestion control measures. Option A accurately highlights this weakness, indicating that without a clear plan, the assertion remains unsubstantiated. Option B incorrectly suggests that acknowledging complexity equates to effective solutions; recognizing a problem does not provide evidence of a plan. Option C points out vagueness regarding customer numbers, but this alone doesn’t address the specific issue of noise and traffic management. Option D misrepresents Brannick's position, as any collaboration mentioned does not guarantee effective noise or traffic reduction, failing to substantiate the claim.
How does the purpose of the email differ from the purpose of the press release?
- A. The email is written to prove to the zoning commission that wildlife would be adversely affected by the superstore, and the press release is written to remind residents that the company provides a valuable service.
- B. The email is written to request that the zoning commission address problems within the community that would be caused by the superstore, and the press release is written to bring those problems to the attention of the public.
- C. The email is written to convince the zoning commission that it should reject the proposal of a new superstore, and the press release is written to explain to residents that the company supports their needs.
- D. The email is written to ask the zoning commission to change the building specifications of the future superstore, and the press release is written to describe adjustments the corporation has made to the original plans.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
Option C accurately distinguishes the purposes of the email and the press release. The email seeks to persuade the zoning commission to reject the superstore proposal, emphasizing community concerns. In contrast, the press release aims to communicate the company's commitment to meeting residents' needs, presenting a positive image. Option A misrepresents the email's intent by suggesting it focuses on proving wildlife harm, while the press release incorrectly emphasizes the company's service rather than addressing community issues. Option B conflates the email's goal of persuasion with a mere request for attention, failing to capture its advocacy nature. Option D incorrectly states the email's purpose as requesting changes to building specifications, which diverges from its focus on rejection, while the press release inaccurately describes it as merely detailing adjustments rather than addressing community concerns.
Option C accurately distinguishes the purposes of the email and the press release. The email seeks to persuade the zoning commission to reject the superstore proposal, emphasizing community concerns. In contrast, the press release aims to communicate the company's commitment to meeting residents' needs, presenting a positive image. Option A misrepresents the email's intent by suggesting it focuses on proving wildlife harm, while the press release incorrectly emphasizes the company's service rather than addressing community issues. Option B conflates the email's goal of persuasion with a mere request for attention, failing to capture its advocacy nature. Option D incorrectly states the email's purpose as requesting changes to building specifications, which diverges from its focus on rejection, while the press release inaccurately describes it as merely detailing adjustments rather than addressing community concerns.