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
In paragraph 5 the author states that opponents of wave technology 'claim that deploying ocean wave devices could also disrupt the relationships that people have with the oceans...' To what extent is this claim supported?
- A. It is unsupported because the author follows the claim with subjective information.
- B. It is unsupported because the author follows the claim with a counterexample that disproves it.
- C. It is well supported because the author follows it with facts and objective evidence.
- D. It is well supported because the author follows it with scientific data that furthers the claim.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
The claim about ocean wave devices disrupting relationships is unsupported, as the author follows it with subjective information rather than objective evidence. Option B is incorrect; there is no counterexample provided that disproves the claim. Option C is also wrong, as the author does not present factual or objective evidence to bolster the assertion. Option D misinterprets the text by suggesting that scientific data supports the claim, while in reality, the subsequent information lacks the necessary objectivity to substantiate it effectively.
The claim about ocean wave devices disrupting relationships is unsupported, as the author follows it with subjective information rather than objective evidence. Option B is incorrect; there is no counterexample provided that disproves the claim. Option C is also wrong, as the author does not present factual or objective evidence to bolster the assertion. Option D misinterprets the text by suggesting that scientific data supports the claim, while in reality, the subsequent information lacks the necessary objectivity to substantiate it effectively.
Based on the email, which description characterizes the relationship between the profitability of the small shops near Juniper Estates and the opening of a Brannick's Superstore?
- A. The size of Brannick's would allow it to offer lower prices, possibly forcing the small shops out of business.
- B. Brannick's would attract new customers to the area, bringing business to the small shops.
- C. The small shops charge higher prices than Brannick's would, potentially allowing them to offer better wages to their workers.
- D. The small shops carry products too specialized for Brannick's, ensuring the loyalty of their customers.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
The relationship between the profitability of small shops near Juniper Estates and the opening of Brannick's Superstore is primarily characterized by competitive pricing. Brannick's larger size enables it to offer lower prices, which may drive small shops out of business due to reduced customer traffic. Option B suggests that Brannick's would attract new customers, which is unlikely to benefit small shops if they cannot compete on price. Option C incorrectly assumes that higher prices lead to better wages, which generally isn't sustainable against lower-priced competitors. Option D overlooks the impact of pricing competition, as even specialized products may not suffice to retain customers when faced with significantly lower prices from a superstore.
The relationship between the profitability of small shops near Juniper Estates and the opening of Brannick's Superstore is primarily characterized by competitive pricing. Brannick's larger size enables it to offer lower prices, which may drive small shops out of business due to reduced customer traffic. Option B suggests that Brannick's would attract new customers, which is unlikely to benefit small shops if they cannot compete on price. Option C incorrectly assumes that higher prices lead to better wages, which generally isn't sustainable against lower-priced competitors. Option D overlooks the impact of pricing competition, as even specialized products may not suffice to retain customers when faced with significantly lower prices from a superstore.
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.
sselect two of the four details from the excerpt into the chart to show which main idea each supports. 1. The narrator is imaginative. 2. The narrator is observant.
- A. The narrator thinks the director looks like the music.
- B. The narrator notices the candlelight reflected off the violin.
- C. The narrator stands to the side while the ladies pass by.
- D. The narrator has a new dress for the concert.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A, B
Option A supports the idea that the narrator is imaginative, as it illustrates creative thinking by comparing the director's appearance to music, showcasing a unique perspective. Option B aligns with the narrator being observant, as it highlights attention to detail by noticing the candlelight's reflection on the violin, indicating a keen awareness of the surroundings. Option C does not directly demonstrate imagination or observance; instead, it shows the narrator's position without revealing insights about their thoughts or perceptions. Option D, while mentioning a new dress, does not provide evidence of either imagination or observance, focusing instead on a superficial detail unrelated to the narrator's cognitive engagement with their environment.
Option A supports the idea that the narrator is imaginative, as it illustrates creative thinking by comparing the director's appearance to music, showcasing a unique perspective. Option B aligns with the narrator being observant, as it highlights attention to detail by noticing the candlelight's reflection on the violin, indicating a keen awareness of the surroundings. Option C does not directly demonstrate imagination or observance; instead, it shows the narrator's position without revealing insights about their thoughts or perceptions. Option D, while mentioning a new dress, does not provide evidence of either imagination or observance, focusing instead on a superficial detail unrelated to the narrator's cognitive engagement with their environment.