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
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.
Based on details in the article, what generalizations can be made about landfills?
- A. Communities accept landfill companies that are receptive to concerns.
- B. Landfill businesses in some communities are following the Gregory brothers' model.
- C. Legal restraints will eventually force communities to close their landfills.
- D. Recycling will eventually replace the need for landfills in all communities.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
Option A highlights the importance of communication between landfill companies and communities, emphasizing that successful operations often depend on addressing local concerns. This reflects a collaborative approach that can lead to better acceptance of landfills. Option B inaccurately suggests that all landfill businesses adopt a specific model, which may not be universally applicable across different communities. Option C presents an overly deterministic view, implying that legal constraints will inevitably lead to landfill closures, which may not be true for all regions. Option D assumes that recycling will completely eliminate the need for landfills, disregarding the reality that some waste will always require disposal.
Option A highlights the importance of communication between landfill companies and communities, emphasizing that successful operations often depend on addressing local concerns. This reflects a collaborative approach that can lead to better acceptance of landfills. Option B inaccurately suggests that all landfill businesses adopt a specific model, which may not be universally applicable across different communities. Option C presents an overly deterministic view, implying that legal constraints will inevitably lead to landfill closures, which may not be true for all regions. Option D assumes that recycling will completely eliminate the need for landfills, disregarding the reality that some waste will always require disposal.
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.
How are the newsletter and the letter to the editor different with respect to their intended audiences?
- A. The newsletter is intended for a more knowledgeable audience.
- B. The newsletter is intended for a younger audience.
- C. The newsletter is intended for a smaller audience.
- D. The newsletter is intended for a more diverse audience.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
The newsletter typically targets a specific group, often a smaller audience, such as members of an organization or community, providing tailored information relevant to their interests. In contrast, a letter to the editor is designed for a broader public audience, aiming to engage a wider range of readers by discussing general issues or opinions. Option A is incorrect because newsletters can cater to various knowledge levels, not just the knowledgeable. Option B is misleading as newsletters are not exclusively aimed at younger audiences; they can serve all age groups. Option D is inaccurate since newsletters often focus on a specific demographic rather than a diverse audience.
The newsletter typically targets a specific group, often a smaller audience, such as members of an organization or community, providing tailored information relevant to their interests. In contrast, a letter to the editor is designed for a broader public audience, aiming to engage a wider range of readers by discussing general issues or opinions. Option A is incorrect because newsletters can cater to various knowledge levels, not just the knowledgeable. Option B is misleading as newsletters are not exclusively aimed at younger audiences; they can serve all age groups. Option D is inaccurate since newsletters often focus on a specific demographic rather than a diverse audience.