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
Which sentence from the blog supports Rodriguez's claim that the Equal Protection Clause was too narrow in scope when first adopted?
- A. The Court even confirmed its prejudicial position in 1875 when it upheld state laws that extended the right to vote only to men.'
- B. Clearly, the Court was relegating as women to a second-class status.'
- C. The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, applied only to men.'
- D. This decision remained the law until ratification of the 19th Amendment, giving us women the right to vote, 45 years later.'
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
Option A highlights the Court's 1875 decision to uphold laws that restricted voting rights to men, illustrating how the Equal Protection Clause initially failed to encompass all citizens, particularly women. This directly supports Rodriguez's argument about the clause's narrow scope. Option B, while indicating the second-class status of women, does not specifically reference the Equal Protection Clause or its limitations. Option C states that the 14th Amendment applied only to men, but it lacks context about the Court's decisions and their implications. Option D discusses the timeline of women's voting rights but does not address the initial constraints of the Equal Protection Clause.
Option A highlights the Court's 1875 decision to uphold laws that restricted voting rights to men, illustrating how the Equal Protection Clause initially failed to encompass all citizens, particularly women. This directly supports Rodriguez's argument about the clause's narrow scope. Option B, while indicating the second-class status of women, does not specifically reference the Equal Protection Clause or its limitations. Option C states that the 14th Amendment applied only to men, but it lacks context about the Court's decisions and their implications. Option D discusses the timeline of women's voting rights but does not address the initial constraints of the Equal Protection Clause.
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.
According to paragraphs 1 and 2 of 'The Letter of the Law,' Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear for nearly 20 years; however, conflict arose in 1998 when Ledbetter was nearing retirement. What can the reader infer from the information in these paragraphs?
- A. Women at Goodyear received fewer promotions than men.
- B. Male supervisors were indifferent about the salaries paid to the female supervisors.
- C. Company policy made it easier for Goodyear to violate the law.
- D. Female employees performed less strenuous tasks than their male counterparts
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
The inference that company policy made it easier for Goodyear to violate the law aligns with the context of conflict arising as Lilly Ledbetter approached retirement. This suggests systemic issues that may have facilitated unfair practices. Option A, while plausible, lacks direct evidence from the text regarding promotions. Option B assumes indifference without supporting details about supervisors’ attitudes toward salaries. Option D inaccurately generalizes the nature of tasks assigned to female employees, which is not mentioned in the paragraphs and does not directly relate to the conflict described.
The inference that company policy made it easier for Goodyear to violate the law aligns with the context of conflict arising as Lilly Ledbetter approached retirement. This suggests systemic issues that may have facilitated unfair practices. Option A, while plausible, lacks direct evidence from the text regarding promotions. Option B assumes indifference without supporting details about supervisors’ attitudes toward salaries. Option D inaccurately generalizes the nature of tasks assigned to female employees, which is not mentioned in the paragraphs and does not directly relate to the conflict described.
Which statement accurately compares the tones of the first paragraph of 'Community Garden Newsletter' and of 'Letter to the Editor: Local Foods'?
- A. One is relieved, while the other is angry.
- B. One is excited, while the other is indignant.
- C. One is insistent, while the other is remorseful.
- D. One is urgent, while the other is pleading.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
In 'Community Garden Newsletter,' the tone is excited, reflecting enthusiasm for community engagement and the benefits of local gardening. This positivity contrasts sharply with the tone of 'Letter to the Editor: Local Foods,' which conveys indignation about the lack of support for local food initiatives. Option A is incorrect as neither tone strongly conveys relief or anger. Option C misinterprets the tones; neither paragraph expresses insistence or remorse. Option D is also inaccurate; while one tone may seem urgent, the other does not convey a pleading sentiment but rather a passionate call to action.
In 'Community Garden Newsletter,' the tone is excited, reflecting enthusiasm for community engagement and the benefits of local gardening. This positivity contrasts sharply with the tone of 'Letter to the Editor: Local Foods,' which conveys indignation about the lack of support for local food initiatives. Option A is incorrect as neither tone strongly conveys relief or anger. Option C misinterprets the tones; neither paragraph expresses insistence or remorse. Option D is also inaccurate; while one tone may seem urgent, the other does not convey a pleading sentiment but rather a passionate call to action.