Ledbetter vs Goodyear Case Analysis

361 Words2 Pages
In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., The Plaintiff, Lilly Ledbetter sued her employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for alleging illegal pay discrimination towards her. Before filing suit, Ledbetter filed a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as needed under Title VII, and therefore started the statutory period of her suit to 180 days before she filed the complaint with the Commission. The argument in favor of the trial was that based on Title VII Goodyear paid her a discriminatorily low salary due to her sex. It was argued that comparing her salary with those of the male sex, whom had the same position and time at the company, Ms. Ledbetter was paid 40% less than the highest earning male, and 15% from the lowest paid male. Goodyear’s argument against the case was the since the statutory period was only 180 days, Ms. Ledbetter could not file a lawsuit about past pay checks, but only those falling under those 180 days. Goodyear simply claimed that Ms. Ledbetter’s claim was time bared. This case is relevant to Human Resource Management because it shows the outcome of what sex discrimination can do if it is not monitored in the work place. It shows the outcome of what a faulty lawsuit looks like, but also gives the perception of what a person might have to do in order to get their full, which in the long run would be most damaging to the company both monetary and publically. I disagree with the outcome of the case; a case of this nature should not be dismissed simply because of the 180 days statutory period. Any worker that feels as though they were victims of sex discrimination should be allowed to file suit against their contractor, not only for a certain period, but for the duration of their employment. I do not agree with the courts decision to dismiss the case because Ms. Ledbetter could not present any

More about Ledbetter vs Goodyear Case Analysis

Open Document