Employees Allowed 180-Days to File Title VII Claims

By
December 31, 2009

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 05-1074 (U.S. May 29, 2007), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for purposes of calculating an employee’s 180-day time limit for bringing a Title VII claim, the employer’s initial unlawful decision to set the employee’s pay, rather than each subsequent issuance of a paycheck based on the earlier discrimination, counts as the “unlawful employment practice” that starts the clock running.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin, as well as retaliation against those who avail themselves of this protection. Lilly Ledbetter worked for 19 years at The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company’s plant in Gadsden, Alabama. At the end of her career her salary, the product of a series of annual raise decisions which was ostensibly based on merit, was between 15% and 40% lower than her male counterparts. Ledbetter filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging sex discrimination, and subsequently filed suit in federal district court, which ruled in her favor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that her current low pay did not justify reaching back to challenge pay decisions made years ago. Instead, the Appeals Court held that employees may only challenge pay decisions within the statute of limitations period. Finding that no jury could conclude that either of Ledbetter’s last two pay decisions was intentionally discriminatory, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed her claim. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. The Court concluded that, “current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination.” Instead, it ruled that Ms. Ledbetter should have challenged the intentionally discriminatory pay decision within 180 days of the discriminatory pay decision itself. The Court found that the case was controlled by its previous decision in United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U. S. 553 (1977), in which a flight attendant, who had been dismissed on the basis of marital status but later rehired without being restored to her former seniority level, had no claim against the airline because the unlawful practice occurred at the time she was discharged, rather than when her seniority was decided later under nondiscriminatory rules.

If you have questions regarding the above, please contact any of the attorneys in the Employment, Benefits & Labor Relations Practice Group of Ruder Ware.

Back to all News & Insights

This document provides information of a general nature regarding legislative or other legal developments, and is based on the state of the law at the time of the original publication of this article. None of the information contained herein is intended as legal advice or opinion relative to specific matters, facts, situations, or issues, and additional facts and information or future developments may affect the subjects addressed. You should not act upon the information in this document without discussing your specific situation with legal counsel.

© 2024 Ruder Ware, L.L.S.C. Accurate reproduction with acknowledgment granted. All rights reserved.