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 from both the article and the letter to the editor, what can the reader infer about the authors?
- A. Both authors feel they have personally paid a price as women in the workplace.
- B. Both authors advocate for legal action to reduce pay inequity.
- C. Both authors support reforms to help women gain equality in the workplace
- D. Both authors want businesses to be leaders in ending pay inequality
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
The inference that both authors support reforms to help women gain equality in the workplace is substantiated by their discussions on systemic barriers and the need for change. They emphasize the importance of addressing inequalities through actionable reforms rather than merely highlighting personal experiences or advocating for legal action alone. Option A is incorrect because while personal experiences may be mentioned, the focus is on broader reforms rather than individual sacrifices. Option B misinterprets their stance; the authors promote change rather than specifically advocating for legal actions. Option D, while relevant, is too narrow, as their emphasis is on comprehensive reforms rather than solely on business leadership.
The inference that both authors support reforms to help women gain equality in the workplace is substantiated by their discussions on systemic barriers and the need for change. They emphasize the importance of addressing inequalities through actionable reforms rather than merely highlighting personal experiences or advocating for legal action alone. Option A is incorrect because while personal experiences may be mentioned, the focus is on broader reforms rather than individual sacrifices. Option B misinterprets their stance; the authors promote change rather than specifically advocating for legal actions. Option D, while relevant, is too narrow, as their emphasis is on comprehensive reforms rather than solely on business leadership.
Other Related Questions
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.
In 'Letter to the Editor: Local Foods,' which of the author's claims is supported by evidence?
- A. Buying fruits and vegetables directly from farmers is reassuring.
- B. Consumers should have many choices about food.
- C. Huge farming enterprises have the technology to grow seasonal foods all year.
- D. Locally grown foods are more nutritional than store-bought foods.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
Option D is supported by evidence, as numerous studies indicate that locally grown foods often retain more nutrients due to reduced time between harvest and consumption. This freshness can enhance nutritional value, making a compelling argument for local food consumption. Option A lacks specific evidence; while buying directly from farmers may feel reassuring, the claim does not provide data or studies to substantiate it. Option B is a subjective opinion rather than a claim backed by evidence, focusing on consumer preference without factual support. Option C presents a generalization about large farming enterprises without concrete evidence, failing to demonstrate how their technology directly impacts seasonal food availability.
Option D is supported by evidence, as numerous studies indicate that locally grown foods often retain more nutrients due to reduced time between harvest and consumption. This freshness can enhance nutritional value, making a compelling argument for local food consumption. Option A lacks specific evidence; while buying directly from farmers may feel reassuring, the claim does not provide data or studies to substantiate it. Option B is a subjective opinion rather than a claim backed by evidence, focusing on consumer preference without factual support. Option C presents a generalization about large farming enterprises without concrete evidence, failing to demonstrate how their technology directly impacts seasonal food availability.
Currently, the technology exists to meet a significant portion of the world's energy demands by converting wave power to electricity. If the author removed the word 'significant' from this sentence, the new sentence would
- A. show diminished potential for this technology.
- B. allow the reader to infer the importance of the technology.
- C. create a realistic portrayal of the technology.
- D. indicate a greater reliance on the technology.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
Removing the word "significant" diminishes the perceived potential of wave power technology. Without it, the sentence suggests that the technology may only meet a minor portion of energy demands, which undercuts its viability and importance. Option B incorrectly implies that the omission would enhance the reader's understanding of the technology's importance, which is not the case. Option C suggests a realistic portrayal, but the removal leads to a less optimistic view rather than a realistic one. Option D misinterprets the change, as it does not indicate greater reliance; instead, it suggests a lesser impact.
Removing the word "significant" diminishes the perceived potential of wave power technology. Without it, the sentence suggests that the technology may only meet a minor portion of energy demands, which undercuts its viability and importance. Option B incorrectly implies that the omission would enhance the reader's understanding of the technology's importance, which is not the case. Option C suggests a realistic portrayal, but the removal leads to a less optimistic view rather than a realistic one. Option D misinterprets the change, as it does not indicate greater reliance; instead, it suggests a lesser impact.
What can the reader infer about the Gregory brothers from the sentence 'They chose to take themselves out of the fight' in paragraph 2 of the article?
- A. They wanted to reinvent how a landfill business operates.
- B. They decided to follow legal requirements ignored by other landfill owners.
- C. They decided to leave the landfill business altogether.
- D. They wanted to present their model for running a landfill to state and county officials.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
The phrase "They chose to take themselves out of the fight" suggests a deliberate decision to step away from conflict, indicating a desire to innovate rather than engage in traditional practices. Option A aligns with this inference, as it implies a focus on reinventing operations. Option B is incorrect because it does not specifically address the brothers’ intent to innovate but rather suggests compliance with existing laws. Option C misinterprets their action as leaving the business entirely, which is not supported by the context. Option D suggests they aimed to showcase their model, but the phrase indicates withdrawal from conflict rather than active presentation.
The phrase "They chose to take themselves out of the fight" suggests a deliberate decision to step away from conflict, indicating a desire to innovate rather than engage in traditional practices. Option A aligns with this inference, as it implies a focus on reinventing operations. Option B is incorrect because it does not specifically address the brothers’ intent to innovate but rather suggests compliance with existing laws. Option C misinterprets their action as leaving the business entirely, which is not supported by the context. Option D suggests they aimed to showcase their model, but the phrase indicates withdrawal from conflict rather than active presentation.