13. This law amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that discriminatory intent is recognized even if the events of intention occur outside the statute of limitations. What can readers infer from this sentence?
Answer: B
Ledbetter's lawsuit created significant change.
Readers can infer that Ledbetter's legal battle brought about important amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically regarding how discriminatory intent is treated in relation to the statute of limitations.
A) Ledbetter waited to file her claim.
This option suggests that Ledbetter's delay in filing her claim was the central issue. While it is true that Ledbetter filed her claim after learning about the pay disparity, this does not address the broader implications of her case, which ultimately led to significant changes in the law regarding discriminatory intent.
B) Ledbetter's lawsuit created significant change.
This option is accurate as it reflects the outcome of Ledbetter's case, which prompted amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law was altered to recognize discriminatory intent, even when the discriminatory actions occurred outside of the statute of limitations, highlighting the lasting impact of her lawsuit on employment discrimination legislation.
C) Ledbetter's employer ignored the existing law.
While Ledbetter's employer, Goodyear, may have acted in a way that was discriminatory, this statement does not capture the essence of the changes brought about by Ledbetter's case. It focuses more on the employer's actions rather than the legal implications and shifts in interpretation that resulted from the lawsuit.
D) Ledbetter felt cheated by her employer.
Although Ledbetter did indeed feel cheated, this emotional response does not directly relate to the legal changes inferred from the law amendment. The focus of the question is on the implications of her lawsuit rather than her personal feelings about her employer's actions.
Conclusion
The option that best captures the inference from the provided sentence is B, as it emphasizes the significant legal changes resulting from Ledbetter's lawsuit. The other options either misrepresent the focus of the question or do not adequately connect to the broader implications of her case within the context of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.