A Major Setback for Pay Equality

• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X07310067
• Author: Norma M. Riccucci
• Published date: 01 March 2008
• Date: 01 March 2008
• Subject Matter: Articles

91

Review of Public Personnel

Administration

Volume 28 Number 1

March 2008 91-96

© 2008 Sage Publications

10.1177/0734371X07310067

http://roppa.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Legal Brief

A Major Setback for Pay

Equality

The Supreme Court’s Decision in

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &

Rubber Company

Norma M. Riccucci

Rutgers University, Newark Campus

Pay inequities based on gender continue to pervade the public and private sector land-

scapes. Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended and the Equal Pay

Act of 1963 proscribe unequal pay for equal work, the newly formed U.S. Supreme Court

has issued a ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (2007) that ignores

Court precedents as well as provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,making it more dif-

ficult for employees to file suit for pay inequities. Ultimately, the problem of pay dispari-

ties in the workplace can only worsen.

Keywords: pay equity; Equal Pay Act; gender inequities; pay discrimination

In May 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear

Tire & Rubber Company that effectively makes it more difficult for public and private

sector employees to file pay discrimination complaints against their employers. With

Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority,the Court ruled that plaintiffs charging pay

discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must file their lawsuit

within 180 days of the actual occurrence of the discriminatory practice, notwithstand-

ing the fact that those practices cannot always be established or uncovered within that

time period.1The ruling has implications for other forms of discrimination in both the

public and private sectors.

The Ledbetter Case

In 1979, Lilly Ledbetter was hired as a supervisor by the Goodyear’s tire assembly

department in Gadsden, Alabama. She was paid the same salary as her male counter-

parts, and all salaried employees were given or denied raises based on their supervisor’s

evaluation of their performance. In 1998, Ledbetter was sent an anonymous note

informing her that her salary was lower than that of all her male counterparts, including