Supreme Court Limits Time Frame for Filing EEOC Claims

On May 29, the Supreme Court made it significantly easier for employers to defend against Title VII workplace discrimination claims that are based on long-ago decisions about salary and raises. By a 5-4 vote, the Court said that employees claiming they received disparate treatment based on gender or race must do so within 180 days of the original discriminatory action ' not within 180 days of their last paycheck. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 05-1074.

The Case

The case was brought by Lilly Ledbetter, a manager at the Goodyear plant in Gadsden, AL. She claimed that she was paid 15% to 40% less than her male counterparts, but the company successfully countered that her complaint was filed too late in relation to the employment decisions affecting her pay.

Business groups applauded the ruling, which spares them from having to defend against 'stale' claims involving decisions that are difficult to document, made by supervisors who may no longer work at the company. Lawyers for employees, however, said the ruling will make it difficult to combat often subtle pay decisions and may encourage workers to 'complain early and complain often' to beat the deadline.

After Ledbetter filed suit in 1999 in federal court for the Northern District of Alabama, a jury found that she was discriminated against, and that the impact of early pay decisions by the company ' she was hired in 1979 ' affected her until the time she filed initially with the EEOC. She was awarded $223,000 in back pay and more than $3 million in punitive damages. The Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the jury determination, finding that no employment decision with discriminatory intent occurred within 180 days before she filed her claim. In a decision written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court agreed, and ruled that Ledbetter's claim was time-barred.

The Dissent

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, author of the dissent, underscored her displeasure with the ruling by reading her dissent from the bench. 'The Court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination,' Ginsburg said. Often, as in Ledbetter's case, Ginsburg said a woman's salary can slip gradually in comparison to men's, so that a substantial gap might become apparent only years after the original discriminatory decision was made.

The Court's only female justice noted that in 1991, Congress responded to several Supreme Court decisions that gave a cramped reading of Title VII by enacting a law in effect overturning those interpretations. 'Today, the ball again lies in Congress' court,' Ginsburg said. 'As in 1991, the legislature has cause to note and correct the Court's parsimonious reading of Title VII.' Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer joined Ginsburg's dissent.

Tony Mauro is the Supreme Court correspondent for the Legal Times, a sister publication of this newsletter.

On May 29, the Supreme Court made it significantly easier for employers to defend against Title VII workplace discrimination claims that are based on long-ago decisions about salary and raises. By a 5-4 vote, the Court said that employees claiming they received disparate treatment based on gender or race must do so within 180 days of the original discriminatory action ' not within 180 days of their last paycheck. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 05-1074.

The Case

The case was brought by Lilly Ledbetter, a manager at the Goodyear plant in Gadsden, AL. She claimed that she was paid 15% to 40% less than her male counterparts, but the company successfully countered that her complaint was filed too late in relation to the employment decisions affecting her pay.

Business groups applauded the ruling, which spares them from having to defend against 'stale' claims involving decisions that are difficult to document, made by supervisors who may no longer work at the company. Lawyers for employees, however, said the ruling will make it difficult to combat often subtle pay decisions and may encourage workers to 'complain early and complain often' to beat the deadline.

After Ledbetter filed suit in 1999 in federal court for the Northern District of Alabama, a jury found that she was discriminated against, and that the impact of early pay decisions by the company ' she was hired in 1979 ' affected her until the time she filed initially with the EEOC. She was awarded $223,000 in back pay and more than $3 million in punitive damages. The Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the jury determination, finding that no employment decision with discriminatory intent occurred within 180 days before she filed her claim. In a decision written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court agreed, and ruled that Ledbetter's claim was time-barred.

The Dissent

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, author of the dissent, underscored her displeasure with the ruling by reading her dissent from the bench. 'The Court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination,' Ginsburg said. Often, as in Ledbetter's case, Ginsburg said a woman's salary can slip gradually in comparison to men's, so that a substantial gap might become apparent only years after the original discriminatory decision was made.

The Court's only female justice noted that in 1991, Congress responded to several Supreme Court decisions that gave a cramped reading of Title VII by enacting a law in effect overturning those interpretations. 'Today, the ball again lies in Congress' court,' Ginsburg said. 'As in 1991, the legislature has cause to note and correct the Court's parsimonious reading of Title VII.' Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer joined Ginsburg's dissent.

Tony Mauro is the Supreme Court correspondent for the Legal Times, a sister publication of this newsletter.