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..
This law amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that discriminatory intent is recognized even if the events of intention occur outside the statute of limitations. What can readers infer from this sentence?
- A. Ledbetter waited to file her claim.
- B. Ledbetter's lawsuit created significant change.
- C. Ledbetter's employer ignored the existing law.
- D. Ledbetter felt cheated by her employer
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
The statement indicates that this law addresses discriminatory intent beyond the statute of limitations, suggesting that Ledbetter's case had a significant impact on civil rights legislation. This implies that her lawsuit led to important changes in how discrimination is addressed legally. Option A is incorrect because it focuses on the timing of Ledbetter's claim rather than the implications of the law. Option C suggests negligence on the employer's part, which is not directly inferred from the statement. Option D, while it may be true, does not reflect the broader legal implications highlighted in the sentence. Thus, the emphasis is on the transformative effect of Ledbetter's lawsuit.
The statement indicates that this law addresses discriminatory intent beyond the statute of limitations, suggesting that Ledbetter's case had a significant impact on civil rights legislation. This implies that her lawsuit led to important changes in how discrimination is addressed legally. Option A is incorrect because it focuses on the timing of Ledbetter's claim rather than the implications of the law. Option C suggests negligence on the employer's part, which is not directly inferred from the statement. Option D, while it may be true, does not reflect the broader legal implications highlighted in the sentence. Thus, the emphasis is on the transformative effect of Ledbetter's lawsuit.
Other Related Questions
How does Anthony respond to conflicting viewpoints about Universal Suffrage?
- A. by revealing the many challenges that were overcome to build the nation
- B. by referring to the principles on which the country was founded
- C. by pointing out the revolutionary changes that equality would inspire
- D. by explaining the benefits related to property holders and taxation
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
Anthony addresses conflicting viewpoints about Universal Suffrage by referring to the foundational principles of equality and democracy upon which the country was established. This approach emphasizes the moral and ethical basis for suffrage, reinforcing the idea that all citizens deserve a voice in governance. Option A is incorrect as it focuses on historical challenges rather than the core principles of democracy. Option C, while relevant, highlights the potential outcomes of equality rather than the philosophical grounding needed for suffrage. Option D incorrectly centers on economic benefits for a specific group, which diverges from the broader argument for universal rights.
Anthony addresses conflicting viewpoints about Universal Suffrage by referring to the foundational principles of equality and democracy upon which the country was established. This approach emphasizes the moral and ethical basis for suffrage, reinforcing the idea that all citizens deserve a voice in governance. Option A is incorrect as it focuses on historical challenges rather than the core principles of democracy. Option C, while relevant, highlights the potential outcomes of equality rather than the philosophical grounding needed for suffrage. Option D incorrectly centers on economic benefits for a specific group, which diverges from the broader argument for universal rights.
Why are Aristotle's conclusions mentioned in the text?
- A. to show why Burl is becoming frustrated by working with his bees
- B. to emphasize that Burl thinks bees are superior to humans
- C. to suggest that bees effectively demonstrate laws of nature
- D. to compare two different philosophies on the nature of bee behavior
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
Aristotle's conclusions are mentioned to illustrate how bees exemplify fundamental laws of nature, highlighting their intricate behaviors and social structures. This connection supports a broader understanding of natural order. Option A misinterprets the focus, as Aristotle's insights are not primarily about Burl's frustrations. Option B mistakenly suggests that the text centers on Burl's perception of bees' superiority, which is not the main theme. Option D, while relevant, does not capture the primary purpose of showcasing bees as representations of natural laws, rather than comparing philosophies.
Aristotle's conclusions are mentioned to illustrate how bees exemplify fundamental laws of nature, highlighting their intricate behaviors and social structures. This connection supports a broader understanding of natural order. Option A misinterprets the focus, as Aristotle's insights are not primarily about Burl's frustrations. Option B mistakenly suggests that the text centers on Burl's perception of bees' superiority, which is not the main theme. Option D, while relevant, does not capture the primary purpose of showcasing bees as representations of natural laws, rather than comparing philosophies.
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.
Nobody was ever hurt by goin' to a circus. Why, law me! I remember I went to one myself once, when I was little.' Based on the excerpt, which key inference about Hester do the sentences support?
- A. She has a sarcastic perspective when thinking about her past
- B. She is frustrated with her husband and sons
- C. She is worried about the overwork of her sons.
- D. She has a permissive side that contrasts with her typical sternness
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
The excerpt reveals Hester's nostalgic recollection of attending a circus, suggesting a lighter, more permissive side to her character, contrasting with her usual stern demeanor. This indicates that she values joyful experiences, especially in her past. Option A misinterprets her tone; there's no sarcasm present. Option B lacks support from the text, as it focuses on her past experience rather than frustration. Option C also does not align with the excerpt, which doesn’t mention her sons' workload or express concern about it. Thus, the focus on a joyful memory highlights her more lenient nature.
The excerpt reveals Hester's nostalgic recollection of attending a circus, suggesting a lighter, more permissive side to her character, contrasting with her usual stern demeanor. This indicates that she values joyful experiences, especially in her past. Option A misinterprets her tone; there's no sarcasm present. Option B lacks support from the text, as it focuses on her past experience rather than frustration. Option C also does not align with the excerpt, which doesn’t mention her sons' workload or express concern about it. Thus, the focus on a joyful memory highlights her more lenient nature.