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..
The author of 'The Letter of the Law' has decided to add subheadings to three paragraphs in her article to explain the idea presented in each. Which subheading summarizes which paragraph?
- A. Supreme Court hears Ledbetter v. Goodyear
- B. Salaries favor men over women
- C. Reasoning behind the decision
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B: Paragraph 2, A: Paragraph 4, C Paragraph 5
Subheading B, "Salaries favor men over women," effectively summarizes Paragraph 2, which discusses the gender wage gap and its implications. This aligns with the content's focus on disparities in pay. Subheading A, "Supreme Court hears Ledbetter v. Goodyear," accurately captures Paragraph 4, where the case's background and significance are outlined, emphasizing judicial involvement. Subheading C, "Reasoning behind the decision," pertains to Paragraph 5, which delves into the Court's rationale and legal interpretations regarding the case, clarifying the decision-making process. Each subheading succinctly reflects the core idea of its respective paragraph.
Subheading B, "Salaries favor men over women," effectively summarizes Paragraph 2, which discusses the gender wage gap and its implications. This aligns with the content's focus on disparities in pay. Subheading A, "Supreme Court hears Ledbetter v. Goodyear," accurately captures Paragraph 4, where the case's background and significance are outlined, emphasizing judicial involvement. Subheading C, "Reasoning behind the decision," pertains to Paragraph 5, which delves into the Court's rationale and legal interpretations regarding the case, clarifying the decision-making process. Each subheading succinctly reflects the core idea of its respective paragraph.
Other Related Questions
Which conclusion is most strongly supported by the information in the email to the zoning commissioner?
- A. Locally owned businesses are commonly found in small communities inside larger cities.
- B. Superstores employ high numbers of residents from the communities where the stores are located.
- C. Many residents in rural areas believe that new growth should be allowed only after approval of nearby communities.
- D. Consumers like the convenience of superstores as long as the stores are located outside their communities.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
Option C is supported by the email's emphasis on the importance of community approval for new growth, reflecting the concerns of rural residents regarding development. This highlights a desire for local governance in decision-making processes. Option A lacks direct support from the email, as it does not address the specific relationship between locally owned businesses and small communities within larger cities. Option B misrepresents the focus of the email, which does not discuss employment statistics related to superstores. Option D contradicts the email's main points, as it does not mention consumer preferences for superstores' locations, instead prioritizing community input in development decisions.
Option C is supported by the email's emphasis on the importance of community approval for new growth, reflecting the concerns of rural residents regarding development. This highlights a desire for local governance in decision-making processes. Option A lacks direct support from the email, as it does not address the specific relationship between locally owned businesses and small communities within larger cities. Option B misrepresents the focus of the email, which does not discuss employment statistics related to superstores. Option D contradicts the email's main points, as it does not mention consumer preferences for superstores' locations, instead prioritizing community input in development decisions.
In her blog, Rodriguez writes from the perspective of a student who is
- A. campaigning in a student election.
- B. commenting on a famous suffragist.
- C. advocating for women's rights.
- D. documenting an event.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
Rodriguez’s blog focuses on the experiences and challenges faced by women, highlighting the importance of advocating for women's rights. This perspective aligns with option C, as it emphasizes activism and social justice. Option A, campaigning in a student election, is too narrow and does not capture the broader theme of women's rights. Option B, commenting on a famous suffragist, suggests a historical analysis rather than a personal advocacy stance. Option D, documenting an event, implies a neutral observation rather than an active promotion of women's rights. Thus, option C best reflects the intent and perspective of Rodriguez's writing.
Rodriguez’s blog focuses on the experiences and challenges faced by women, highlighting the importance of advocating for women's rights. This perspective aligns with option C, as it emphasizes activism and social justice. Option A, campaigning in a student election, is too narrow and does not capture the broader theme of women's rights. Option B, commenting on a famous suffragist, suggests a historical analysis rather than a personal advocacy stance. Option D, documenting an event, implies a neutral observation rather than an active promotion of women's rights. Thus, option C best reflects the intent and perspective of Rodriguez's writing.
Which underlying premise is the main basis for the argument presented in the email to the zoning commissioner?
- A. Neighborhood committees are vital to protecting local businesses.
- B. Superstores upset the preferred lifestyle of certain communities.
- C. Small communities are threatened by the existence of large superstores.
- D. Local businesses are unable to adapt quickly to change.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
The argument in the email centers on the impact of superstores on community lifestyles, making option B the strongest premise. It highlights concerns about how superstores disrupt the established way of life in certain neighborhoods, which is a key focus of the argument. Option A, while relevant to local business interests, does not directly address the core issue of lifestyle disruption. Option C suggests a threat to small communities, but it lacks the specificity regarding lifestyle preferences that option B provides. Option D implies a broader economic concern but does not capture the essence of community lifestyle preservation central to the argument.
The argument in the email centers on the impact of superstores on community lifestyles, making option B the strongest premise. It highlights concerns about how superstores disrupt the established way of life in certain neighborhoods, which is a key focus of the argument. Option A, while relevant to local business interests, does not directly address the core issue of lifestyle disruption. Option C suggests a threat to small communities, but it lacks the specificity regarding lifestyle preferences that option B provides. Option D implies a broader economic concern but does not capture the essence of community lifestyle preservation central to the argument.
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.