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..
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.
Other Related Questions
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.
How does the use of the phrase 'put on a thin veneer' in paragraph 3 shape the author's argument in the article?
- A. The phrase implies that other companies are misunderstood, while the Gregory brothers are given too much praise.
- B. The phrase indicates that other companies ignore community concerns, while the Gregory brothers do not.
- C. The phrase suggests that other companies pretend to be conscientious, while the Gregory brothers are sincere.
- D. The phrase helps explain how other companies fight their legal battles, while the Gregory brothers do not.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
The phrase "put on a thin veneer" suggests superficiality, indicating that other companies may feign concern for community issues without genuine commitment. This contrasts with the Gregory brothers, who are portrayed as sincere in their efforts. Option A misinterprets the phrase, as it does not suggest misunderstanding or excessive praise. Option B inaccurately implies that the focus is solely on community concerns, neglecting the theme of authenticity. Option D incorrectly connects the phrase to legal battles, diverting from the core idea of sincerity versus pretense.
The phrase "put on a thin veneer" suggests superficiality, indicating that other companies may feign concern for community issues without genuine commitment. This contrasts with the Gregory brothers, who are portrayed as sincere in their efforts. Option A misinterprets the phrase, as it does not suggest misunderstanding or excessive praise. Option B inaccurately implies that the focus is solely on community concerns, neglecting the theme of authenticity. Option D incorrectly connects the phrase to legal battles, diverting from the core idea of sincerity versus pretense.
Give two details from the excerpt to the main ideas they support. 1. William appreciates Hester. 2. William understands Hester.
- A. Willer saw the same circus animals as Hester
- B. William ignores Hester's agitation as she darns socks.
- C. William and Hester sit together in the evenings.
- D. William recognized Hester's fluency at prayer meetings
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B, C
Option B highlights William's awareness of Hester's emotions, as he chooses to overlook her agitation while she is engaged in a mundane task. This demonstrates his understanding and appreciation for her, indicating a deeper connection. Option C supports the idea of appreciation through the simple act of spending time together, suggesting a bond that goes beyond superficial interactions. Option A is irrelevant since shared experiences do not directly indicate appreciation or understanding. Option D, while showing recognition, does not convey the emotional connection necessary to support the main ideas effectively.
Option B highlights William's awareness of Hester's emotions, as he chooses to overlook her agitation while she is engaged in a mundane task. This demonstrates his understanding and appreciation for her, indicating a deeper connection. Option C supports the idea of appreciation through the simple act of spending time together, suggesting a bond that goes beyond superficial interactions. Option A is irrelevant since shared experiences do not directly indicate appreciation or understanding. Option D, while showing recognition, does not convey the emotional connection necessary to support the main ideas effectively.
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.