I STILL don’t have time to write the long and thoughtful post I would like on this case, but I thought I could at least provide you with some excellent links on the Ledbetter vs. Goodyear case so that you can decide for yourself if you think Goodyear should be boycotted until they make good on what a jury originally awarded Ledbetter. Yesterday Jeffrey commented on my first post announcing the campaign suggesting that pay discrimination is a myth and that Ledbetter lost her case because she failed to prove discrimination. I’ve read the Supreme Court case, and it is not true that she failed to prove discrimination. If you read the case with an educated eye, as well as refer to the original case that she won, it is clear that she failed to prove discrimination within the bogus time constraint for discrimination cases.

If you visited yesterday, you will remember that I have started a campaign to boycott Goodyear Tire Co by getting 10,000 supporters to boycott starting on Mother’s Day. Of course 10,000 is just a start. After all, the more the merrier. If you haven’t signed up for the campaign, please do!

To understand the case better, I would recommend you start your reading here (Cornell Law School).

For further information:

  • Lilly Ledbetter: Peaceful Revolution: Equal Pay for Equal Work- Time for the Senate to Vote – Living on The Huffington Post

    This piece was co-authored by Lily Ledbetter and Joan Blades. I can’t believe I need to write this blog. The 1964 Civil Rights Act made equal pay for equal work the law of the land. For almost 50 years Americans have had the justice system to turn to when they suffer pay discrimination. Last year the Supreme Court upended this law by making it essentially unenforceable.

  • The Stagnant Artist: Back to the Stone Ages

    Another blogger who has picked up the campaign.

    tags: Ledbetter

  • LEDBETTER v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.

  • David Drake: Lilly Ledbetter vs Goodyear:

    The Lefty Blogosphere’s Most Overrated,

    Biggest Non-Story Of The Year (so far!)

    A dissenting view, but Velvet Verbosity thinks you need to hear both sides to accurately decide for yourself which side you fall on. “The ruling by the court is right-on. Look at it this way, she waited 19 years to file suit and then files suit within 180 days of her final paycheck? This woman is none too bright. She forges along in her daily work routine for 19 years, clueless that others may – may – be earning more than her, coupled with the fact of Goodyear saying her performance reviews were substandard. Like I wrote, this woman is none too bright. Some Liberal female bloggers have written that there should be absolutely no statute of time limitations on cases like this. Well, keep on living in your tiny, brainless bubble gals.”

  • On the Legal Front: Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Co.: A Divided Supreme Court Causes Quite a Stir January 2008

  • Opinion L.A. : Los Angeles Times : Who’s afraid of Lilly Ledbetter?

    Who’s afraid of Lilly Ledbetter? Not Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Both came out in favor of a congressional bill that would make it easier for victims of pay disparity to charge discrimination in court. That’s what Lilly Ledbetter tried to do, but the Supreme Court ruled against her, adhering closely to a law that says discrimination must be reported within 180 days of its occurrence. As the editorial board wrote earlier this week:

  • Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. ___ (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that employers are protected from lawsuits over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. This was a case of statutory rather than constitutional interpretation. The plaintiff in this case, Lilly Ledbetter, characterized her situation as one where “disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period.” In rejecting Ledbetter’s appeal, the Supreme Court said that “she could have, and should have, sued” when the pay decisions were made, instead of waiting beyond the 180-day statutory charging period.

  • Ledbetter, Lilly v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. – Medill – On the Docket

  • LEDBETTER v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.

    To show how far the Court has strayed from interpretation of Title VII with fidelity to the Act’s core purpose, I return to the evidence Ledbetter presented at trial. Ledbetter proved to the jury the following: She was a member of a protected class; she performed work substantially equal to work of the dominant class (men); she was compensated less for that work; and the disparity was attributable to gender-based discrimination. See supra, at 1–2. Specifically, Ledbetter’s evidence demonstrated that her current pay was discriminatorily low due to a long series of decisions reflecting Goodyear’s pervasive discrimination against women managers in general and Ledbetter in particular. Ledbetter’s former supervisor, for example, admitted to the jury that Ledbetter’s pay, during a particular one-year period, fell below Goodyear’s minimum threshold for her position. App. 93–97.Although Goodyear claimed the pay disparity was due to poor performance, the supervisor acknowledged that Ledbetter received a “Top Performance Award” in 1996. Id., at 90–93. The jury also heard testimony that another supervisor—who evaluated Ledbetter in 1997 and whose evaluation led to her most recent raise denial—was openly biased against women. Id., at 46, 77–82. And two women who had previously worked as managers at the plant told the jury they had been subject to pervasive discrimination and were paid less than their male counterparts. One was paid less than the men she supervised. Id., at 51–68. Ledbetter herself testified about the discriminatory animus conveyed to her by plant officials. Toward the end of her career, for instance, the plant manager told Ledbetter that the “plant did not need women, that [women] didn’t help it, [and] caused problems.” Id., at 36.10 After weighing all the evidence, the jury found for Ledbetter, concluding that the pay disparity was due to intentional discrimination. Yet, under the Court’s decision, the discrimination Ledbetter proved is not redressable under Title VII. Each and every pay decision she did not immediately challenge wiped the slate clean. Consideration may not be given to the cumulative effect of a series of decisions that, together, set her pay well below that of every male area manager. Knowingly carrying past pay discrimination forward must be treated as lawful conduct. Ledbetter may not be compensated for the lower pay she was in fact receiving when she complained to the EEOC. Nor, were she still employed by Goodyear, could she gain, on the proof she presented at trial, injunctive relief requiring, prospectively, her receipt of the same compensation men receive for substantially similar work. The Court’s approbation of these consequences is totally at odds with the robust protection against workplace discrimination Congress intended Title VII to secure. See, e.g., Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S., at 348 (“The primary purpose of Title VII was to assure equality of employment opportunities and to eliminate … discriminatory practices and devices … .” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 418 (1975) (“It is … the purpose of Title VII to make persons whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful employment discrimination.”).

  • The Overlooked Explosive News Story « Just Above Sunset

  • TESTIMONY OF LILLY LEDBETTER BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member for inviting me. My name is Lilly Ledbetter. It is an honor to be here today to talk about my experience trying to enforce my right to equal pay for equal work. I wish my story had a happy ending. But it doesn’t. I hope that this Committee can do whatever is necessary to make sure that in the future, what happened to me does not happen to other people who suffer discrimination like I did.

Let’s show the business world that with Social Media behind us, citizens do not need to wait in frustration for fair policies to be passed. We can send powerful messages quickly and efficiently by sharing and organizing on the internet, and then with solidarity choosing to not spend our money with companies that we feel are getting away with unfair practices. We can, as a combined force, effect change.

Join these other bloggers in sharing the Goodyear Boycott Campaign.

  • Two Women Blogging
  • Telecommuting Journal
  • The Stagnant Artist
  • LouCeel
  • The Junkys Wife
  • Green Girl Today
  • You should be here! C’mon bloggers, let’s show corporate America where it’s at! (If I’ve missed you, please email or comment and I’ll add you.)

/ Digg this /
Stumble this