Ledbetter V Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co in the Context of the Modern Society

Gender Discrimination in an Equal Society The case involving Mary as an employee of a construction company who feels that she is discriminated on account of her gender is very similar to the Supreme Court case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. case of 2007. Even with this, Mary's situation is more controversial as a consequence of the vagueness associated with her situation. Lilly Ledbetter realized that she was making at least $6,708 less than male counterparts in her company.

The fact that she experienced a series of issues in the past and that she received negative reviews were considered to play an important role in the management's decision. In contrast, Mary discovered her male counterparts were making at least $5,000 more than her per year and there seemed to be no immediate discernable reason for it.

To a certain degree, it would be safe to say that the environment where a gender-based law-suit would occur is very different now from how it was at the time when Ledbetter went against her employers. Society is currently focused on providing rapid responses to lawsuits involving individuals being discriminated on account of their gender. Furthermore, the Fair Pay Act of 2009 (that is actually called the Lilly Ledbetter Act) significantly changes the circumstances in which an employee can sue their employer on account of gender discrimination.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 stated that an employee was able to file an equal-pay lawsuit if the employer discriminated him or her approximately 180 days or less before the lawsuit takes place. The fact that Ledbetter sued her employer after more than 180 days consequent to the moment when she was discriminated made it impossible for her to be successful in Court.

"The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act has now created such a "paycheck accrual rule." For all intents and purposes, each paycheck, even if it is not tainted with discriminatory intent, triggers a new EEOC charging period during which the complainant may properly challenge any previous discriminatory conduct that might have affected the paycheck's amount, regardless of how long ago that discrimination might have occurred." (Robinson & Franklin 52) Mary's situation is very different especially because of the Fair Pay Act of 2009.

The act changed the way an employee can report his or her employer and stipulates that the 180 limit resets with each paycheck that can be connected to the discriminatory action. This means that Mary can address her condition in the context of the Fair Pay Act of 2009 and that she is likely to win as a result of the occurrence. Mary's situation is certainly divisive when considering that she has been working with the company for more than fifteen years. The fact that she is in a.