• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Matt Bennett Ledbetter V Goodyear
 

Matt Bennett Ledbetter V Goodyear

on

  • 970 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
970
Views on SlideShare
970
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Matt Bennett Ledbetter V Goodyear Matt Bennett Ledbetter V Goodyear Presentation Transcript

    • Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Matt Bennett February 19 th 2009
    • What Happened?
      • Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire company for numerous years. (1979-1998).
      • She was a respected member of the company and felt as if she was getting paid less than some of her fellow male employees
    • Important Info.
      • Prosecutor :Lilly Ledbetter
      • Defendant: Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
      • Date held in SC: decided 2007 argued 2006
    • Ledbetter’s evidence
      • Lilly Ledbetter claimed that 15 men working the same job that she had were getting paid more than she was
      • Her evidence proving was that the lowest paid male in her field was getting paid $4,286 and the highest paid male in her field was getting paid $5,236.
      • Ledbetter was only getting paid $3,727
    • Ledbetter’s evidence (Cont.)
      • She filed formal charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
      • In November 1998, after early retirement, Ledbetter sued claiming pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
    • Goodyear’s evidence
      • Goodyear said that the payroll was completely based on performance and nothing else.
      • Goodyear said that Ledbetter was not working to the full capacity of her peers and thus she was not paid the same as they were
    • If I were judge
      • If I were the judge I would have ruled in favor of Lilly Ledbetter.
      • A 180 charging period is definitely not enough time to judge how if a company is discriminatory with their pay
      • I agree with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act completely
    • Results
      • The court ruled in favor of Goodyear Tire& Rubber Company
      • Their reasoning on this decision was that Ledbetter did not file the claim in the 180 charging period
      • Ledbetter argued that Goodyear had been discriminatory with her pay long before the charging period and there was no proof of how to show this.
    • But wait
      • Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote and read her dissent to the bench which is highly rare stating that the 180 charging period was not enough time to receive the full evidence of what was going on.
      • Ginsberg stated that the discriminatory pay would have happened in small increments and would have been hard to catch.
    • Interesting Facts
      • In 2007 democrats passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
      • This states that the 180 charging period will reset after every discriminatory paycheck
    • Bibliography
      • &quot;Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.&quot; www.wikipedia.com . wikipedia. 8      Mar. 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/      Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire_&_Rubber_Co.>.
      • http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1074.pdf
      • www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/411/work-to-overturn- ledbetter - vs - goodyear /
    • Rubric Points will be deducted for loud or goofy behavior You know what I’m talking about. Appropriate behavior in library ____ out of 7 Sources cited ____ out of 7 Make it look balanced and professional Visually appealing ____ out of 20 Good research and summary skills shown Accuracy and level of detail