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
What is the function of the phrase 'On the other hand' in the last sentence of paragraph 11?
- A. It reinforces the positive image consumers have of local produce.
- B. It emphasizes the difference in the time it takes store-bought produce and local produce to get to consumers.
- C. It illustrates the dislike consumers have of store-bought produce.
- D. It distinguishes between consumers of store-bought produce and consumers of local produce.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
The phrase "On the other hand" serves to highlight a contrasting point regarding the time it takes for different types of produce to reach consumers. This indicates a significant difference in freshness and availability between local and store-bought options, aligning with option B. Option A is incorrect because it does not focus on the time aspect; instead, it suggests a positive perception that is not the primary focus of the phrase. Option C misinterprets the phrase's intent, as it does not address consumer dislike but rather a comparison. Option D inaccurately suggests a distinction between two consumer groups, which is not the main emphasis of the sentence.
The phrase "On the other hand" serves to highlight a contrasting point regarding the time it takes for different types of produce to reach consumers. This indicates a significant difference in freshness and availability between local and store-bought options, aligning with option B. Option A is incorrect because it does not focus on the time aspect; instead, it suggests a positive perception that is not the primary focus of the phrase. Option C misinterprets the phrase's intent, as it does not address consumer dislike but rather a comparison. Option D inaccurately suggests a distinction between two consumer groups, which is not the main emphasis of the sentence.
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.
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.
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.