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
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.
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.
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.
How does the purpose of the email differ from the purpose of the press release?
- A. The email is written to prove to the zoning commission that wildlife would be adversely affected by the superstore, and the press release is written to remind residents that the company provides a valuable service.
- B. The email is written to request that the zoning commission address problems within the community that would be caused by the superstore, and the press release is written to bring those problems to the attention of the public.
- C. The email is written to convince the zoning commission that it should reject the proposal of a new superstore, and the press release is written to explain to residents that the company supports their needs.
- D. The email is written to ask the zoning commission to change the building specifications of the future superstore, and the press release is written to describe adjustments the corporation has made to the original plans.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
Option C accurately distinguishes the purposes of the email and the press release. The email seeks to persuade the zoning commission to reject the superstore proposal, emphasizing community concerns. In contrast, the press release aims to communicate the company's commitment to meeting residents' needs, presenting a positive image. Option A misrepresents the email's intent by suggesting it focuses on proving wildlife harm, while the press release incorrectly emphasizes the company's service rather than addressing community issues. Option B conflates the email's goal of persuasion with a mere request for attention, failing to capture its advocacy nature. Option D incorrectly states the email's purpose as requesting changes to building specifications, which diverges from its focus on rejection, while the press release inaccurately describes it as merely detailing adjustments rather than addressing community concerns.
Option C accurately distinguishes the purposes of the email and the press release. The email seeks to persuade the zoning commission to reject the superstore proposal, emphasizing community concerns. In contrast, the press release aims to communicate the company's commitment to meeting residents' needs, presenting a positive image. Option A misrepresents the email's intent by suggesting it focuses on proving wildlife harm, while the press release incorrectly emphasizes the company's service rather than addressing community issues. Option B conflates the email's goal of persuasion with a mere request for attention, failing to capture its advocacy nature. Option D incorrectly states the email's purpose as requesting changes to building specifications, which diverges from its focus on rejection, while the press release inaccurately describes it as merely detailing adjustments rather than addressing community concerns.