Thesis on "Judicial Review Ledbetter v. Goodyear"

Thesis 6 pages (1671 words) Sources: 0

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Judicial Review of Ledbetter v. Goodyear

The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on May 29, 2007 generated a great deal of public attention and dissent from the bench of Justice Ginsburg. There is the potential for significant ramifications from the decision in this case in some U.S. states. This case is one in which the alleged pay discriminations had occurred over a period of many years and in which the alleged pay discrimination was of the nature that was not noted immediately as such.

The Brief of the Petitioner, Ledbetter states that the question presented in this Brief is the question of:

Whether and under what circumstances a plaintiff may bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging illegal pay discrimination when the disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period." (Russell, et al., 2006)

FACTS of the CASE

On September 7, 2006, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Lilly M. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Inc. On a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which is reported in a Brief for the Petitioner by Counsel Russell, et al. (2006). Stated in the petitioner's statement of this brief is that the jury found that the respondent, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company was, at the time the charge of discrimination was filed by petitioner, Lilly Ledbetter with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), was paying petitioner at a lower rate than her male coworkers were being paid and that this was because of her sex which violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 24 U.S.C. 2000 et seq.

The records show that the District Court agreed with this finding upon the basis that there was ample evidence to support this fact at trial. However, the court of appeals reversed the jury's verdict concluding that the present pay disparity resulted from decisions that were discriminatory in nature and that were made in excess of 180 days prior to the petitioner filing her charge with the EEOC. Because it was the belief of the court that there was not an element of discrimination in the most recent decisions concerning pay then Goodyear could not be held to be liable even if the determination of the jury was that intentional sex discrimination had occurred. Title VII sets the time limitations for filing a charge of discrimination at "...within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged lawful employment practice occurred." (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(1)

II. TITLE VII REQUIREMENTS on FILING of CLAIMS

The deadline for filing a Title VII discrimination charge, specified in Section 706(e)(1) functions as a 'statute of limitations' and thereby precludes filing of a suit that has been barred by time limitations. The case of Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 395 (1986) resulted in findings of the Court that "...[e]ach week's paycheck that delivers less to a black than to a similarly situated white is a wrong actionable under Title VII..."

Nearing the end of the presentation of evidence in the trial a movement was made on the part of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company that "an employee alleging disparate pay must file an EEOC charge within 180 days of the pay raise decision giving rise to the disparity." (Russell, et al., 2006)

III. CLAIMS STATED by the RESPONDENT

The respondent in this case, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company states in the brief of the respondent that the petitioner, Ledbetter does not have a timely intentional pay discrimination claim for actions taken outside the charge-filing period since Section 706(e) effectively bars a private plaintiff from bringing an intentional discrimination claims concerning the lingering effects of decisions occurring outside of the charge-filing period and because the petitioner's intentional pay discrimination claim is time-barred because the petitioner challenges the present effects of salary decisions occurring outside of the charge-filing period. Secondly, the respondent claims that Bazemore v. Friday does not provide authorization of an intentional pay discrimination claim by a private party concerning alleged discrimination occurring outside of the charge-filing period and states that this is because Bazemore was concerned with allegations made by the U.S. In relation to present intentional discrimination and that the court rejected the defense on the part of the employer that the claim was barred since the discrimination alleged started prior to the effective date of Title VII.

The respondent's brief states specifically that upon the theoretical basis presented by the petitioner in this case, the petitioner, Ledbetter "...could prevail only by proving that her 1997 pay raise denial was discriminatory." (Russell, et al., 2007)the argument presented by Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company was that Ledbetter had not succeeded in presenting evidence sufficient in proving that claim. The motion was denied and the court provided the jury with instructions that the requirement was that the petitioner "prove that each claim arose within six months of her filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC." (Nager, et al., 2006)

The respondent, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company states in its brief that just as acknowledged by the court Title VII makes it a requirement that employees alleging having been aggrieved and specifically in this case the claim filed by the petitioner, Ledbetter, that when making an assertion of discrimination on the basis that it was intentional, that this claim either be filed within the 180-day period specified by law or alternatively that the petitioner lose their claim. It is the argument of the respondent in this case Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, that there are no provisions in Title VII that allow the petitioner to revive an intentional discrimination claim when there was no timely filing of the charges of intentional discrimination on the basis that adverse effects continue in later time periods due to an unlawful actions outside of the time period allowed for filing of claims.

The respondent's petition in this case states that under the Equal Pay Act "...[a] violation occurs when an employer pays lower wages to an employee of one gender than to substantially equivalent employees of the opposite gender in similar circumstances" -- without the "need [to] prove that the pay disparity was motivated by... discriminat[ion].

Pollis v. New Sch. For Social Research, 132 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1997) (discussing 29 U.S.C. 206(d)). Thus, the mere payment of a disparate wage constitutes an independent violation and starts a new limitations period each time that it occurs." (Nager, et al., 2006)

Just as well the respondent points out that within the scope of the Fair Labor Standards Act "the source of [an employee's] recovery is the failure to pay [the employee] overtime, not the [employer's'] rationale for not paying overtime. Knight v. City of Columbus, 19 F.3d 579, 582 (11th Cir. 1994). Liability for a failure to pay overtime within the limitations period does not depend on the original "decision to classify overtime-eligible employees as exempt," which may have occurred outside the limitations period. Thus, "[e]ach failure to pay overtime constitutes a new" and complete "violation." (Nager, et al., 2006) the respondent brief also states that installment obligations under contract law is of the same effect in that the law states: "[a] cause of action in contract accrues at the time of the breach or failure to do the thing that is the subject of the agreement and cites Richard a. Lord, Williston on Contracts 79:14, at 316 (4th ed. 1990." (Nager, et al., 2006) Therefore, if money is required under the contract to be paid in installments, then each separate installment payment represents an obligation that is separate, and each failure to pay the installment represents a "...separately actionable breach..." And this same rule… READ MORE

How to Reference "Judicial Review Ledbetter v. Goodyear" Thesis in a Bibliography

Related Thesis Papers:

Judicial Review: The Legacy of Marbury v Term Paper

Judicial Review: The Legacy of Marbury v. Madison

The supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court has become the final arbiter of what the… read more

Term Paper 4 pages (1436 words) Sources: 7 Style: MLA Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Judicial Review and Democracy the Basic Premise Term Paper

Judicial Review and Democracy

The basic premise of democracy is the idea of one man, one vote. However, in large societies, the idea of one man, one vote, necessarily becomes… read more

Term Paper 5 pages (1703 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Judicial Review No Doubt Exists Term Paper

Judicial Review

No doubt exists about the significance given to the complete and thorough understanding of the Judicial Review. It had been treated by many originalists as one of the… read more

Term Paper 10 pages (3458 words) Sources: 10 Topic: Government / Politics

---

Judicial Dictatorship This Report Serves Book Review

Judicial Dictatorship

This report serves as a summary and analysis of the book Judicial Dictatorship by Bridwell and Quirk. It was written nearly a generation ago but many of the… read more

Book Review 6 pages (1839 words) Sources: 4 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards on Public Policy Grounds Lessons From the Middle East Introduction

Middle East Dispute Resolution

JUDICIAL REVIEW of ARBITRAL AWARDS on PUBLIC POLICY GROUNDS: LESSONS FROM the MIDDLE EAST

The objective of this work is to conduct a judicial review of… read more

Introduction 20 pages (5647 words) Sources: 30 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>