Lilly Ledbetter Goodyear Case Summary

After reviewing the data it is apparent the promotional rate of women in managerial positions when compared to the men is disproportional to the size of the population. This shows disparate treatment, the company hires women, but women do not promote at the same pace as men. This shows strong evidence of discrimination and if not resolved will lead to a violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Clark's company currently demonstrates improper practices of discrimination, particularly toward women. Such as the lack of equal opportunity for promotions, in which two employees were denied as such. And the gender disparity in which most females are in low paid jobs. Furthermore, the

Penny Ann Beernsten, a thirty-six year old small business co-owner and physical fitness instructor, went through a traumatic experience on the afternoon of July 29, 1985. She jogged at a stretch of Lake Michigan shoreline in Wisconsin. She was planning on meeting with her father at the beach at 4:00 PM and she started the jog at 3:50 PM, but was grabbed and taken to the woods where she was raped and deprived her of oxygen by suffocation until she passed out. When she woke up, she walked out of the woods, where couples comforted her until she found her husband and finally the police. (Possley).

Colleen reports that her supervisor Colleen Ramos, who is in her late 30’s, terminated her for “working out of your job scope” and followed injury at work to Colleen Wheeler’s shoulder. Colleen does not know whether she will be replaced but suspects that her salary is an issue and believes that she has been targeted based on her age. She indicates that

The court should take a look at what the partners said like, “she was sometimes overly aggressive” (Nkomo, Fottler, McAfee, 7 edition, p. 57). The judge should rule in favor of Thelma Jones because she is being sexually discriminated. The employer did in fact discriminate unlawfully because you’re not allowed to tell a woman to be more “femininely” just to get a higher position.

• The fact that Anita said that the plaintiff will probably get job with the fact that the plaintiff had performance evaluation than the younger woman awarded the promotion led the plaintiff to expend emotional and financial recourses pursuing this ADEA claim in federal court. (Twomey, 2010, pg. 525)However, when analyzed by the court under a “direct evidence of discrimination “theory and under the McDonnell Douglas model, she had no case. (Twomey, 2010, pg. 525)

This was interesting to learn. Here is some background I found about this act. Lilly Ledbetter was one of the few female supervisors at the Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Alabama, and worked there for close to two decades. She faced sexual harassment at the plant and was told by her boss that he didn’t think a woman should be working there. Her co-workers bragged about their overtime pay, but Goodyear did not allow its

Women still continue to feel as an outcast when they feel they are competing with the opposite sex for equal pay. In a recent article in the Baytown Sun a current volleyball coach made an allegation that she was being paid unfairly compared to the male coach that is currently employed at her job doing the same work in the athletic program. Tracie Johnson, a current Lee College coach, has filed a suit of discrimination against Lee College claiming unequal-pay. (Pineda, 1) Her allegations for this claim are that her co-worker of the opposite gender makes more money and has more privileges than she does. Although the suit is ongoing and is yet to be determined the outcome, to this day women continue to battle for wages based on

When Burlington moved Sheila from an easier position to a more labor extensive job that is considered a slight against her. Sheila was also accused of insubordination which was false. The false claim lead to her being suspended without pay for more than a month. Before this case, there had to be an adverse action that disadvantaged the employee due to discrimination. In this case, Sheila did not lose pay after her demotion, and was not fired from her job.

The case, Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., was about discrimination against gender. Ledbetter felt that she was being discriminating against due to her being a female. After reading over the case, Ledbetter was employed at the company for 19 years. She felt that she was getting lower ratings and lower raises then the other employees at the company. According to the case, Ledbetter sued Goodyear for gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that the company had given her a low salary because of her gender. A jury found for Ledbetter and awarded her over $3.5 million, which the district judge later reduced to $360,000 (2016).

Lilly Ledbetter worked at Goodyear nearly two decades; She received a note in her work mailbox shortly before her retirement revealing that she had been paid less than men doing the same job for the entirety of her career at Goodyear. She had no way of knowing prior because employee’s salaries were confidential. The Supreme Court had determined she would not get compensation because she had not filed the complaint within 180 days of receiving the first discriminatory paycheck.

Regardless of the Plan the Agency has previously created, Joyce did not assume that she had a better chance of receiving the job opportunity. The Plan was not created in order to restrict male employee’s rights or future opportunities. Even though the Plan represented a model of improvement between the hiring process of minorities and women, it was proven that sex discrimination was in fact held against the respondent. “The Court held further that the Agency 's consideration of Joyce 's sex in filling the road dispatcher position was lawful. The Agency Plan had been adopted, the court said, to address a conspicuous imbalance in the Agency 's work force, and neither unnecessarily trammeled the rights of other employees, nor created an absolute bar to their advancement (FindLaw). In this point in time, The District Court proved that Santa Clara transportation did not hire Joyce due to no current females working that position and they wanted the consisttancy. Even after the implementation of the Plan, it was wrong to not to recognize Joyce’s advantage to receive the job opportunity. The Agency admitted to the following, “sex is but one of the several factors that may be taken into account in evaluating qualified applicants for a position” (FindLaw). It was proven the Joyce did not expect a better chance at receiving the job opportunity, but felt it was unfair due to past experiences and qualifications.

The woman in Pennsylvania is just one example of discrimination that is happening currently nation wide. My argument is that women should not be put into the situation to choose between advancements in their careers’ or children. Women constitute natural personal choices, which causes them to earn less in comparison to men with the same skill and experience. This lower salary wage is not only affecting this now, but it is also affecting their future finances.

Discrimination continues to run rampant throughout organizations in both the United States and worldwide. The Supreme Court case, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., dealt with 1.5 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees that claim that they had been a victim of gender discrimination. The ensuing pages will discuss the specific issues that the plaintiffs encountered, followed by suggestions from a human resource manager’s stand point in rectifying adverse impact within the Wal-Mart organization.

Despite the fact that the Equal Pay Act has been law since 1963, many problems inevitably arise in the administration of equal pay laws (Fisher). It has been estimated that at this current slow rate of progression in closing the gender pay gap it will be 2068 by the time men and women’s wages are equalized. It is clear that the business case, as well as the legislative case, has a significant role to play (Commission Policy Report).