The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against Ledbetter.

Question

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against Ledbetter. In the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer makes the initial discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck. This court decision ultimately led to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub.L. 111–2, S. 181), which states the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit resets with each new paycheck affected by discrimination. The act is a federal statute and was the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009. Lilly’s website states the following:

For 10 years, Lilly Ledbetter fought to close the gap between women’s and men’s wages, sparring with the Supreme Court, lobbying Capitol Hill in a historic discrimination case against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.... Ledbetter will never receive restitution from Goodyear, but she said, “I’ll be happy if the last thing they say about me after I die is that I made a difference.” (www.lillyledbetter.com)

The Lilly Ledbetter case shows that employees care a great deal about the rewards they receive from an organization, and these rewards must be fair. They pay attention to rewards—particularly what they are paid. Pay inequity may cause employees to feel undervalued by the organization and raises concerns regarding organizational justice.

( This is a true story.)

Explanation / Answer

Implication for performance management system: The Ledbetter case's result has not direct implication to performance management system. Since Goodyear won the suit, they could carry on with their regular practices. That being said, the performance management system must not take into consideration factors such as age, sex, race and ethnicity. The performance and skill metrics must be as quantified as possible rather than subjective.

How to avoid such issues: In order to avoid such issues, the organization HR practices need to be in order. During recruitment process and offering the job to the candidates, organizations must not consider candidate demographic data to make decision. The amount of pay and compensation must be purely based on the skill, competency and level of experience the candidate have. In addition, the managers can also consider conduction a pay-scale normalization activity once every year. This way, colleagues at the same level remain at a similar pay range.

Reaction: Lilly Ledbetter obviously reacted negatively for being paid less. However, she need to consider the following. She has been in the organization for 10 years. In the 10 years time, she likely had 10 appraisals based on her performance. Unless she has received the highest appraisal rating for each of the last 10 years, it is possibly that some of her colleagues have overtaken her in terms of compensation. Thus there is a chance that her smaller income is not because of sexual discrimination but rather cumulation of performance appraisal system.

How do I feel: I feel the judge was correct in ruling the case in favor of Goodyear. As I mentioned in the above paragraph, the lesser compensation could be a result of performance appraisal system and not necessarily due to sexual discrimination.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.