Question 15

Lilly Ledbetter lost her employment discrimination case because the Supreme Court ruled against her due to the timing of her claim.

The Supreme Court ruled against Ledbetter because she filed her case after the allotted period of time set by Title VII, which required her to have filed within 180 days of the discriminatory salary decision.

A) The Supreme Court decided that Goodyear could keep employees such as Ledbetter from comparing salaries

This option is incorrect. The Supreme Court's ruling did not hinge on Goodyear's ability to restrict salary discussions among employees. Instead, the court focused on the timing of Ledbetter’s claim relative to Title VII's statute of limitations.

B) Ledbetter could not refute Goodyear's claim that she was paid less because she performed poorly.

This option is also incorrect. Although Goodyear claimed that Ledbetter's pay was a reflection of her job performance, this was not the basis for the Supreme Court's decision. The court's ruling centered on the timing of her complaint rather than the merits of her performance.

C) The Supreme Court ruled against Ledbetter because she filed her case after the allotted period of time.

This option is correct. The court determined that Ledbetter's claim was time-barred because she did not file within the 180-day period required by Title VII, failing to establish a valid claim for discrimination based on past pay decisions.

D) Ledbetter could not provide sufficient evidence that had been paid less than her male equivalents.

This option is incorrect. The evidence presented in Ledbetter's case demonstrated that she was indeed paid less than her male counterparts. However, the court's decision did not focus on the sufficiency of her evidence but rather on the statute of limitations issue.

Conclusion

Lilly Ledbetter's case ultimately failed due to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute of limitations in Title VII, which required her to file her complaint within a specific timeframe. While the evidence of pay disparity was present, the court ruled that her claim was not valid because it was filed too late. All other options either misinterpret the court's focus or incorrectly attribute the loss to factors that were not decisive in the ruling.