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..
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.
Other Related Questions
Drag and drop the events into the chart to show the order in which they occur in the story.
- A. Burl has trouble falling asleep.
- B. Burl notices his honey jars are lined up perfectly.
- C. Burl makes a delivery in town.
- D. Burl realizes that someone is stealing his honey.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C, B, D, A
The sequence begins with Burl making a delivery in town (C), which sets the stage for the events that follow. Upon returning, he notices his honey jars are lined up perfectly (B), indicating something unusual has occurred. This observation leads him to realize that someone is stealing his honey (D), prompting concern about the situation. Finally, the story culminates with Burl having trouble falling asleep (A), likely due to his worries about the theft. Options A, B, and D are out of order as they depend on the delivery and the subsequent realization of the theft, which must occur before Burl's sleeplessness.
The sequence begins with Burl making a delivery in town (C), which sets the stage for the events that follow. Upon returning, he notices his honey jars are lined up perfectly (B), indicating something unusual has occurred. This observation leads him to realize that someone is stealing his honey (D), prompting concern about the situation. Finally, the story culminates with Burl having trouble falling asleep (A), likely due to his worries about the theft. Options A, B, and D are out of order as they depend on the delivery and the subsequent realization of the theft, which must occur before Burl's sleeplessness.
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.
Burl refers to the thief as an 'artiste' in the story because
- A. the thief arranges the jars in patterns.
- B. the thief scrawls a drawing on the back of an IOU.
- C. the thief leaves beautiful objects rather than money.
- D. the thief avoids getting caught by being creative.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
Burl refers to the thief as an 'artiste' primarily because of the thief's ability to arrange the jars in visually appealing patterns (Option A). This artistic presentation elevates the act of theft to an expression of creativity. Option B, while mentioning a drawing, does not highlight the thief's overall artistic flair as effectively as the arrangement of jars. Option C suggests that leaving beautiful objects is significant, but it lacks the direct connection to artistry implied by the careful arrangement. Option D focuses on the thief's creativity in avoiding capture, which, although clever, does not specifically relate to artistry in the same way as the aesthetic arrangement of jars.
Burl refers to the thief as an 'artiste' primarily because of the thief's ability to arrange the jars in visually appealing patterns (Option A). This artistic presentation elevates the act of theft to an expression of creativity. Option B, while mentioning a drawing, does not highlight the thief's overall artistic flair as effectively as the arrangement of jars. Option C suggests that leaving beautiful objects is significant, but it lacks the direct connection to artistry implied by the careful arrangement. Option D focuses on the thief's creativity in avoiding capture, which, although clever, does not specifically relate to artistry in the same way as the aesthetic arrangement of jars.
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.