Unknown Story
Storyboard Text
- What led to this court case?
- Wow, $4286 this month!
- Why is mine only $3727?!
- Ledbetter's first complaint
- I would like to file a charge
- Ledbetter's argument
- Lilly led was being paid significantly less than her male associates. She believed this was because of her gender.
- Goodyear's argument
- In July 1998, Ledbetter filed a formal EEOC charge. This did not work so she had to file a lawsuit.
- Supreme court ruling
- Ledbetter argued that prior to her retirement, she was paid significantly less than any of her male colleagues. She stated that she was the only woman working as an area manager, and the pay discrepancy between her and her 15 male counterparts was stark. she was awarded $223,000 in back pay and $3 million in punitive damages.
- Congress and President Obama respond
- Goodyear appealed, contending that Ledbetter's pay discrimination claim was time barred with respect to all pay decisions made prior to September 26, 1997 - that is, 180 days before she filed her EEOC questionnaire. Since Title VII provides that a charge of discrimination must be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of any alleged unlawful employment practice, Ledbetter's pay discrimination claim was untimely. the 11th circuit court of appeals agreed and reversed the jurys verdict.
- Ledbetter wanted the supreme court to review her case and the court agreed to hear it. the Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit's decision holding that the 180-day limitation period prohibited Ledbetter from filing her Title VII discrimination charge after 180 days from the occurrence of the alleged discriminatory act.
- In June 2007, THe house commitee on labor and education first introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act at the 110th Congress. It passed in the House of Representatives but not the senate. After many votes, it eventually passed and the president signed it into the law.
Over 30 Million Storyboards Created
No Downloads, No Credit Card, and No Login Needed to Try!
