Lilly Ledbetter was a long-time manager of a Goodyear Tire Company in Gadsden, Alabama from 1979 till 1998. Around the time she was going to retire she discovered that she was making much less than her male counterparts, almost 40% less over her 20 years there. She sued Goodyear and won being rewarded $3,514,417 from the jury, but due to laws restricting how much money a jury could reward, the judge reduced the winnings to $360,000. Goodyear appealed the case and brought it to the 11th Circuit of Appeals which ruled in Goodyear’s favor. They believed that Ledbetter missed the 180 day window to appeal for discretionary pay. The case was brought all the way to the Supreme Court in the court case Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007), …show more content…
In a nontraditional fashion, Justice Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench. Being against the ruling, Justice Ginsburg called on Congress to change the law of Title 7 so the Supreme Court ruling wouldn’t stand. Since the case was statutory it was about how to interpret a law, not if the law was constitutional. If Congress was to change the law the Supreme Court ruling would be useless. Ledbetter would continue to fight for equal pay for women and in 2009 Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which stated that the statute of limitations resets after every discriminatory paycheck. My reaction to the documentary was not being shocked that men and women were being payed unequal, but the limited power of the Court and the headstrong decision of Justice Ginsburg to stand against the Court’s decision. The difference between Statutory and Constitutional rulings means that it isn’t the end of some cases/problems if the Court rules against them. Also for the case of Justice Ginsburg to give her dissent from the bench was in my eyes a brave and noble thing to