Talk:Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Verification of "Reaction and Subsequent Legislation" Section

Can someone verify the final sentence in the "Reaction and Subsequent Legislation" section? The claim seems to be factually contradicted by other sources, such as: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28910789/ While it is true that, as the source indicated says, "The bill does not change current law limiting back pay for claimants to two years," it also clearly states that, "The law effectively nullifies a 2007 Supreme Court decision that said workers had only 180 days to file a pay-discrimination lawsuit." Perhaps someone with a better legal mind than mine can verify what this law actually did to the Supreme Court case, and what effect its passage would have had on the actual Supreme Court case. In the meantime, I've "fact" tagged it. Zminer (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to come here and change everything, but the claim that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 would not change the outcome in the Ledbetter case is wrong. In the case, Ledbetter argued that each new check that she received from Goodyear triggered a new charging period.See Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S 618, 625 (2007) ("In essence, she suggests that it is sufficient that discriminatory acts that occurred prior to the charging period had continuing effects during that period."). Section 3 of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 seems to specifically remedy this issue and overturns the Supreme Court when it states,

For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this title, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, section 3, Pub. L. No. 111-2, 123 Stat. 5 (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5) (emphasis added).

Hence, I'm removing the last sentence Zminer found contradicted by the msnbc article. --Rousseau (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Decision section needs written

I have changed the skelton of this article by adding a decision & disent section to better match most wiki articles dealing with supreme court decisons. As part of this I have moved the old 2nd paragraph into it. (Disent details isn't normally part of summary). We do however need a paragaph added about the decision in that new section. Jon 13:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome source in the public domain

CRS Report about the case Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 01:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Alito Opinion / Ginsberg Dissent

Added information about the majority opinion, referencing those who voted with the majority, in order to balance the already referenced minority dissent. Judges are now named both the Opinion & Dissent.TGTommyrocket (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)TGTommyrocket

Do we need a section of what Ledbetter v Goodyear is NOT?

Just reading blogs on Ledbetter, find HUGE amount of confusion on what it decided, and certain statements of facts that aren't subjects in a discussion of the case. The sort of thing I am talking about

1. Supreme Court took no position on whether Ledbetter had ever suffered discrimination, just ruled on what the law said about filing periods
2. Facts of the case. My understanding of the case is that she made multiple allegations of discrimination, including allegations that she suffered discrimination in poor evaluations in the years just prior to her early retirement, and that these were rejected by all courts (except the Supreme, which did not consider them). The only allegation on which there was a mixed judgement (rejected, then affirmed, then rejected (overturned)) was the 1979-81 series of bad performance reviews, which were 20-30 years prior (and all the other principals were dead). The Supreme Court considered only one of Ledbetter's multiple allegations, and only if suit could be filed.
3. Not knowing about the discrimination. This is one that comes up, and really the only one that is mentioned in the article. Commentators and articles keep mentioning that it is unfair that if someone is discriminated against, and not aware of the discrimination, the 180 day charging period does not start, and do so in reference to L v G. That was not an issue; it would have been a valid defense, just wasn't the case in Ledbetter's circumstance; and not an issue that is disputed legally, nor considered by the Supreme Court
4. The connection between her 1996 pay and the 1979 bad evaluations. Not only was the idea that 1979-1981 constituted discrimination, but that the pay almost 20 years later was connected. there were multiple factors that contributed to her low pay, including semi-voluntary furloughs that she took over the time period. Supreme Court also did not rule on this. The connection of equal pay at hiring, unequal pay at retirement is often made without mention of multiple factors, the implication being that discrimination AND discriminatory EFFECT are obvious. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

request

very nice article; perhaps you can address the following; I have read that Ms Ledbetter stated in a deposition that she knew she was underpaid as early as 1992. Many people, mostly of a conservative bent, seem to take this to mean that Ms Ledbetter knew she was being discrimminated agaisnt, and therefore her failure to file in a timely fashion is her own fautl. this doesn't seem to be part of the supreme court legal argument - perhpas for us non lawyers, you could explain why this is not relevant thanks, again, thanks for a nice job — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.51.31 (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Good and very easy question to answer. The issue of whether she could sue IF she had not known about an alleged discrimination had been clearly ruled on, years before her Supreme court case, and was established law at the time of Goodyear v. Ledbetter. If you don't know about a discriminatory event, the "clock" doesn't start, simple as that. When she FIRST sued, in lower court, one of her arguments for why the 180 day time limit should be waived was exactly that; that she didn't know about the discrimination. That was disproven in lower court, and she dropped the allegation, so the idea she did not know was never brought before the Superior Court or the Supreme Court. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So, put simply, she initially said she didn't know, that was proved wrong before the case went to the Supreme Court, so the Judges never considered it. Quick question, though; THIS page, the Talk page is supposed to be where discussions of how to improve the article take place; what do you find most confusing about the article, and what do YOU think it needs to answer unanswered questions, or better explain? Just because you may not feel you know law does not mean you can't help the article; it really does help to hear how it can better help the non-lawyer, since that it what it is supposed to do. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ledbetter is back in the news, so I agree that the legal issues need clarification. Roger (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501134932/http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day04/archive/2008/02/04/the-ledbetter-case.aspx to http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day04/archive/2008/02/04/the-ledbetter-case.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711100051/http://www.gibbonslaw.com/news_publications/articles.php?action=display_publication&publication_id=2173 to http://www.gibbonslaw.com/news_publications/articles.php?action=display_publication&publication_id=2173
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216071239/http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RS22686.pdf to https://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RS22686.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/showpage.aspx?pageid=18

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)