Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

550 U.S. 618, 127 S. Ct. 2162, 167 L. Ed. 2d 982 (2007)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

United States Supreme Court

550 U.S. 618, 127 S. Ct. 2162, 167 L. Ed. 2d 982 (2007)

Facts

Lilly Ledbetter (plaintiff) worked for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) (defendant) from 1979 until 1998. During Ledbetter’s employment, pay for salaried employees like Ledbetter was based on supervisors’ evaluations of their performance. There was no evidence that Goodyear’s pay structure was adopted to discriminate based on sex. In 1998, Ledbetter filed a sex-discrimination charge against Goodyear with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Ledbetter then sued Goodyear in federal district court, alleging claims including pay discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Ledbetter asserted that her supervisors gave her poor performance evaluations because of her sex. Ledbetter further asserted that past pay decisions continued to affect her pay amount throughout her employment and that by the end of her employment, she was making significantly less than her male colleagues. A jury found for Ledbetter and awarded backpay and damages. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that a Title VII pay-discrimination claim could not be based on any pay decision that occurred outside the statutorily mandated 180-day period for filing an EEOC charge based on an allegedly unlawful employment practice. The appellate court concluded that there was insufficient evidence that Goodyear acted with discriminatory intent in making decisions about Ledbetter’s pay during the 180-day period. Ledbetter petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari on the narrow issue of whether an employee could bring a Title VII pay-discrimination action if the employee received disparate pay during the statutorily mandated filing period but the disparate pay resulted from intentionally discriminatory pay decisions made outside the filing period. The Supreme Court granted Ledbetter’s certiorari petition.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Alito, J.)

Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership