When Lilly Ledbetter found out she was getting paid less than her male coworkers at Goodyear, she decided to take a stand. Her fight went all the way to the Supreme Court and even changed U.S. law.
Starting at Goodyear
In 1979, Lilly Ledbetter started working at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Gadsden, Alabama. At first, everything seemed fair, she earned the same pay as the men working beside her.
But as the years passed, she noticed something strange. By the time she was close to retirement, she was making $3,727 a month while the lowest-paid man earned $4,286 and the highest made $5,236.
At Goodyear, raises were based on job performance. Workers got formal evaluations that determined whether they’d get a pay increase.
During her early years, from 1979 to 1981, Lilly got several negative evaluations. She later said these reviews were unfair and based on her being a woman. Even though her later evaluations improved, her pay never caught up.
Discovering the Pay Gap
By 1998, Lilly had been with Goodyear for almost twenty years. That March, she started asking questions about possible pay discrimination. A few months later, in July, she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
In November, after she retired early, she sued Goodyear for pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
Her claim wasn’t about whether discrimination happened, it was about timing. The Supreme Court only looked at whether she had waited too long to file her claim.
Under Title VII, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer… to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin….”
The law also said, “A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”
This meant employees had only 180 days from when discrimination happened to report it. But Lilly argued that each paycheck she received counted as a new act of discrimination because it was based on old unfair pay decisions.
What Happened in Court
The District Court first heard her case. It ruled against her Equal Pay Act claim, saying Goodyear’s pay differences were based on “merit.” But the court allowed her Title VII claim to move forward.
At trial, Lilly told the jury she had been unfairly evaluated because of her gender and that this caused her to earn less than her male coworkers. Goodyear disagreed, saying all evaluations were based only on performance. The jury believed Lilly and awarded her back pay and damages.
Goodyear appealed, arguing that most of her claims were too old—that anything before September 26, 1997, didn’t count because of the 180-day limit.
The Eleventh Circuit Court agreed with Goodyear. It said Lilly could only sue for pay decisions made within 180 days before she went to the EEOC in March 1998.
Lilly then asked the Supreme Court to review her case.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007), went before the Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion.
The Court said that Lilly’s claim was filed too late. According to Title VII, the discrimination had to happen within the 180-day period—not years before.
The Court explained that “each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act.” In other words, the checks might show unfair pay but they didn’t prove a new act of discrimination within that time frame.
Justice Alito said Lilly “could have, and should have, sued” when those pay decisions were made instead of waiting years later.
This 5-4 decision was supported by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts.
Ginsburg’s Strong Dissent
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t agree at all. She wrote a passionate dissent and even read it aloud from the bench—something justices rarely do. Joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer, she said the 180-day rule didn’t make sense for pay discrimination cases.
Ginsburg explained that pay discrimination “often occurs in small increments over time.” Workers may not realize they’re being underpaid right away—especially since most people don’t know their coworkers’ salaries.
She said the Court’s strict view was “cramped” and went against the purpose of the law which was meant to protect workers.
Ginsburg argued that Goodyear had been “knowingly carrying past pay discrimination forward” and should be held responsible. Her words would soon spark change.
The Ledbetter case wasn’t about the Constitution—it was about how to interpret a federal law. Still, it had a huge impact. The ruling meant that workers couldn’t sue for pay discrimination if the original unfair pay decisions happened more than 180 days before they filed a complaint.
But many people felt this was unfair, especially since discrimination can be hidden for years. So, Congress decided to act.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
After the decision, several Democratic members of Congress introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The new law said that each new paycheck affected by past discrimination resets the 180-day clock.
This meant workers could still sue even if the original unfair decision happened years earlier—if they were still getting smaller paychecks because of it.
The bill became a big issue during the 2008 presidential election. Barack Obama supported it while John McCain opposed it. Lilly Ledbetter herself appeared in Obama’s campaign ads and even spoke at the Democratic National Convention.
In January 2009, Congress passed the bill and President Obama signed it into law. It was the first major piece of legislation he signed as president.
