“From 1979 to 1998, Lilly Ledbetter worked as a supervisor at Goodyear’s plant in Gadsden, Alabama. Over the course of her career, her pay slipped when compared to the pay of men of equal experience and seniority. She sued the company, alleging pay discrimination on the basis of her gender under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Goodyear argued that the discriminatory act was the decision to pay her less, which took place many years ago and that therefore her lawsuit is too late. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Goodyear’s favor”, (Lilly M. Ledbetter, Petitioner V. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., 2007).
Later, Justice Ginsburg returned to the trial record to make her point that Ledbetter is the victim of unlawful discrimination. As Ledbetter’s evidence demonstrated that her current pay was discriminatorily low due to a long series of decisions reflecting Goodyear’s pervasive discrimination against women managers in general and Ledbetter in particular, the court ruled in her favor.
First of all, Goodyear and Ledbetter both had conflicting
…show more content…
For instance, “Toward the end of her career, for instance, the plant manager told Ledbetter that the “plant did not need women, that [women] didn’t help it, [and] caused problems,” (Lilly M. Ledbetter, Petitioner V. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., 2007).Regardless the plant’s manager’s personal beliefs, the manager did not have to share his opinion on female presences in the organization with Led Better while representing and being a part of the organization. In the case, this behavior suggested that it was implied that the organization believed that women’s involvement had an adverse effect on its operations. However, Goodyear hired female employees due to their qualifications and expected contribution to the organization. The contrasts in viewpoints are blatantly