While gender discrimination remains a thing of the past in many civilized nations, it still exists in many doorsteps and perhaps in a different dimension altogether. The case of Ledbetter versus Good year is an example of gender discrimination that has found a new style in many work institutions across the globe. Lily Ledbetter sued Goodyear Tire as well as the company alleging pay discrimination which she termed as illegal. The case fell under Title VII of the then Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to Bartlett et al., the case sheds some light on how to apply the eleventh circuit of the American constitution. However, the circuit is extremely hostile especially to victims in accordance to pay discrimination. Various sections are of great concern to the claimants. For instance, a claimant could not challenge a discriminatory paycheck under the, ruling unless there was an immediate agreement to pay her less due to gender discrimination instance which was within 180 days. Moreover, the decision had to be most recent before the said days.
Primarily, estimates vary, and an average woman still is accustomed to being earning seventy to eighty cents compared to every dollar a man earns. The main reason for such earn disparity is not well understood. However, the imminent discrimination against women certain explains some of the noteworthy portions of the issue (Zimmer & Sullivan, 2017). The case filed by Ledbetter hugely depended on the evidence of the purportedly discriminatory wage reviews which occurred before the statutory time to attest that the amount that was given before the paycheck was discriminatory. According to the jury, Goodyear had paid the victim a lower salary due to illegal sex discrimination and was in violation of Title VII. Goodyear then filed an appeal which argued that the said Title VII’s legal period should have denied Ledbetter a chance to present her evidence to the incidents concerning the alleged discriminatory conduct which occurred within the legislative period. The case was then dismissed as agreed to by the Eleventh Circuit. This was, however, an unfair decision which denied the victim a chance of getting a deserving judgment concerning paycheck as well as the gender discriminatory claims. The decision by the court then meant that employees could be denied the chance and ability to fill equal pay claims which were under Title VII. Additionally, employees could not defend themselves against claims of discrimination especially that of gender.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The victim argues that the Eleventh Circuit tends to violate the main purpose of Title VII. Apparently, this is because unless the employee identifies a payment incongruity and report the case from the reported onset, she might be condemned for the same argument. Ledbetter had a showcase that in various instances the employees are not granted immediate access to the better pay rates (Bartlett, Rhode, & Grossman, 2016). Additionally, discrepancies might not become imminent until when they are used as the foundation for the pay raise. On the other hand, Goodyear opposes that since both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit did not showcase that the recent pay was inequitable, and then Ledbetter’s argument was not valid in accordance to the time frame of presentation of the case. In Goodyear’s standpoint, the essential aim of selecting a shorter legal timeline for the Title VII charges is to reassure speedy compliance as well as reducing litigation, especially on out-of-date accusations. She argues that if Ledbetter was allowed to look back earlier than the legal timeline would be against such purpose and would, therefore, run against the laws that a complainant has to show a present instance of the decisive discrimination. However, it should not be just simply an existing policy as applied indiscriminately to the result of past judgments.
The outcome of the case was likely to have a major impact on both the employers as well as the employees in as far as discrimination is concerned. The affirmation of the Eleventh Circuit meant that the employees were to be prohibited from many Title VII claims since they would get the opportunity of appreciating the discrimination quickly enough to file a charge in time. According to Zimmer et al., this was not a fair viewpoint of action and therefore was against the employee payment and discrimination act. It ought to be therefore to be rechecked ad a lasting solution set on the same. In regards to the employee’s payment, such discrimination was bound to happen since they don’t know how their salaries vary with other co-workers. Additionally, variance in initial salary was not automatic unless it was to be compounded by percentage raise.
What would the employees do rather than being conscious as well as being suspicious of such discrepancies concerning pays? They have to file any claims readily to preserve their rights against late suits (Mason & Stephenson, 2015). In contrast, if the court allowed Ledbetter to look back ahead of the legal period, then the main purpose that concerns timely filing would be subdued. As a result of such action, there would be the loss of benefit of repose that is set within time on the side of employers. An observer would look to this as total discrimination yet the employees are the one affected at most during their limitless time of working and being abused on the subdued tasks. Every issue has to be looked into with a lot of concern focusing on the interest of both parties.
Discrimination is sometimes an order of the day in various institutions, and action has to be followed. While the law is clear that a complainant has to file a petition in time, it should be reviewed that the interest of the workers should be at the forefront of everything. The issue of gender is not well addressed in many organizations, and therefore the law should be strict on such aspect. While many countries have tried to address gender discrimination as a violation of the law, various cases still go unpunished in the contemporary society. It does not work well to deny the fact that men are sometimes considered as being more competent than women. This is a notion that should discourage and according to the victim of this case, she should be given a chance of a more fair hearing than just to refute her evidence on the aspect of a timeline. It is unjust for the to consider the case of Ledbetter as invalid after she claimed that she had initially been sexually discriminated and receive lower payment without imminent pay rise consideration.
Many might argue against such notion without critically looking at the company’s as well as the employer’s compliance with the Title VII act which gives insight to the rights of the employees. Such notion should be refuted, and the case should have been allowed to stand for a proper judgment to be reached. In case an individual takes consequent public actions for considerably illegal pay discrimination, often the suit is partial to the occurrences of discrimination that is reported within the legal period. In most cases, 180 days is the minimum timeline for the filing of the complaint before the occurrence of the said discrimination. The clearance of the legal timeline is imminent in case there is a discrete act, for instance, forced resignation or rather failure of promotion. According to Ledbetter, the rule of the Eleventh Circuit real and therefore notes that the minimal likelihood of the willingness of various employees to file a given charge against their employers, especially within the first six months. In that case, the victim always finds it difficult of getting a fair judgment as they are prone to be dismissed under the legal timeline.
This case is a clear illumination of a critical tension that exists between the employer and the employees in regards to employment discrimination. In conclusion, the employer intends to limit the employee on how far back in time they can look for evidence concerning employment discriminations. Regrettably, most employees are fond of not discovering the intended evidence until the period of discrimination occurs. In case the jury ruled in favor of Goodyear then it means that employees need to be more vigilant of the discriminatory conduct as imposed by their employers. In total regard, employers should be the focal point as far as the legal compliance of the employers and the company is concerned. Employees should be treated equally and not by their gender alignment. If the case was to be ruled in favor of Ledbetter, then it meant that the employers would be liable for the discriminatory actions in their entire careers. This would be imminent even if there were a well-organized mechanism such as those of annual reviews of salaries which would then limit their liability. Although it might make sense from the viewpoint of making sure that the Title VII is enforced, ruling against the employers would be to discourage the act of discrimination especially in the premises of work. It will be to curb the imminent gender issues in the society and ensuring that employees enjoy their rights freely without the fear of being denied their pay rise.
References
Bartlett, K. T., Rhode, D. L., & Grossman, J. L. (2016). Gender and law: Theory, doctrine, commentary. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Mason, A. T., & Stephenson, G. (2015). American constitutional law: introductory essays and selected cases. Routledge.
Zimmer, M. J., & Sullivan, C. A. (2017). Cases and materials on employment discrimination. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
