At the tail end of its Term, the Supreme Court announced that it will review a ruling of the Eleventh Circuit in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., in which the court of appeals threw out a jury verdict in favor of a woman who alleged sex discrimination under Title VII because she was paid less than her male counterparts. Lilly Ledbetter worked at a Goodyear tire manufacturing plant in Alabama for about 19 years – one of only three women managers at the plant during that whole time. While she worked at the plant, Ledbetter was told that “the plant did not need women” and that women “caused problems.” All three women were paid less than the male managers, and at the end of her time at the plant, Ledbetter’s salary was more than 20 percent lower than the lowest-paid male with equivalent experience in her job position. This was enough for a jury to find that Goodyear discriminated against Ledbetter on the basis of sex, but not for a panel of the Eleventh Circuit, including the controversial Bush appointee William Pryor.
Contrary to a 1986 Supreme Court decision finding that each discriminatory paycheck is unlawful regardless of when the discrimination began – and the rulings of several other Circuit Courts as well -- the Eleventh Circuit panel ruled that a court could look no further into the past than the employer’s most recent pay decision. While the court did not question that Ms. Ledbetter’s lower salary was the result of earlier sex discrimination, it concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to show that her most recent denials of a raise had been based on her sex. And because Ms. Ledbetter had missed the deadline for filing a complaint with the EEOC on the earlier discrimination, the court wiped out the jury verdict.
On the one hand, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is good news because it is an opportunity to reverse a bad Eleventh Circuit decision. On the other hand, it is worrisome if the newly constituted Court, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, decides to revisit the Court’s 1986 decision in favor of victims of discriminatory pay disparities and finds a way to disregard or undermine that precedent. Stay tuned for more on this case as it’s briefed and argued in the Supreme Court Term that begins in October.
