Lilly Ledbetter Case Summary

The first round of Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. White in the federal court reject the discrimination claims but did reward her in damages from the retaliation that violated Title VII in the amount of $43,000. Burlington appealed on the claim she did not suffer this retaliation and had no grounds to bring a suit . Their defense was that she had not be let go from the company, the position that they gave her after being pulled from the forklift was the same classification so she was not demoted, nor was she denied a promotion or wages. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals did not buy this defense and concurred that because she was suspended without pay, regardless of the fact that she was reinstated with full back pay, was

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc. The general facts of the case are that Lilly Ledbetter was an employee of Goodyear Tire for nearly two decades. When it came to annual performance and salary reviews, she was regularly given low performance marks which led to low raises in comparison to other workers. Ledbetter felt that these reviews and low wages were a result of her being a woman; therefore she filed a suit against the company under Title VII. When brought to jury, the verdict was in favor of Ledbetter and she was awarded 3.5 million dollars, which was later reduced to $360,000. Like the Burlington v. White case, the company appealed the case on the grounds that there was a statute of limitations regarding when complaints had to be filed. Here, Goodyear argued that there was a provision in Title VII that required a complaint to be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory

The question at stake was if a plaintiff could bring forth a suit of salary discrimination under Title VII when the unequal salary a person received during the 180-day limit prescribed in the provisions is ultimately the result of a long period of discrimination that reached far beyond the statutory limitations . Justice Alito delivered the majority opinion that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts that her failure to file with the EEOC when she first felt like her salary was based on discriminatory actions did not allow her special considerations for because she felt that her pay discrimination was not the same as other types of employment discriminations; however, they believed her claim to be untimely as a decision regarding pay has to do with a particular point in time, which in this case would only be permissible in the 180 days and the pay period after she filed the