Contemporary Legal Article Critique

Running head: Contemporary Legal Article Critique

Abstract

In the Military, the rules of engagement may consist of an action predefined to rectify potential combat situations. It can also defined as a determining action (or rule) conducted as a result of a previous disagreement. In society however, when a discriminatory action is conducted against an employee, there is an abundance of laws to protect wrongful engagement towards employees. Federal and state employment discrimination laws prohibit employers from engaging in unfair employment practices, such as hiring, assigning projects to, promoting, compensating, terminating, or harassing employees based on their race, religion, sex, physical disability, national origin, or age. Most employers today are anxious when faced with discrimination and harassment complaints. The over anxiousness can often lead to workplace tension, government investigations, and even costly legal battles. But if the employer takes these complaints seriously and follows a careful strategy for dealing with it, the employer can reduce the likelihood of a lawsuit and even improve employee relations in the process.

A Historical Background

Discrimination cases tend to be of huge concern throughout the history of the United States and there are many different forms of its existence in the workplace. Discrimination is often defined as unique treatment to others based solely on their membership in a socially distinct group or category such as race, sex, religion, ethnicity, or disability. Because of this unmovable value, laws that make discrimination illegal at the federal and local levels have been enacted in this country. In the 1960's the Civil Rights Movement brought to the forefront, the discrimination faced by African-Americans in our culture and birthed the anti-discrimination laws now in effect. Lilly Ledbetter was a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber's plant in Gadsden, Alabama, from 1979 until her retirement in 1998. For many of those years, she worked as an area manager, a position largely occupied by men. Initially, Lilly Ledbetter's salary was in line with the salaries of men performing substantially similar work. Over time, however, her pay slipped in comparison to the pay of other male area managers with equal and even some who were less senior. By the end of 1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was huge: Ledbetter was paid #3,727 per month. In comparison, the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, while the highest, $5,236. Additional inserts are of evidence from D.C. Docket No.99-03137-CV-C-e are as stated: "On March 25, 1998, Ledbetter filed a questionnaire with the Equal employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that she had been forced into the technology Engineer position and was being subjected to disparate treatment in her new department on account of her sex. (U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2005) Her formal administrative complaint specified that, in violation of Title VII, Goodyear paid her a discriminatorily low salary because of her sex. The charges were eventually tried to a jury, which found it "more likely than not that Goodyear paid Ledbetter an unequal salary because of her sex." (Court of Appeals) In full consent of the jury's determination, the District Court entered judgment for Ledbetter for backpay and damages, plus counsel fees and costs. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision indicating that a Title VII pay discrimination claim cannot be based on any pay decision that occurred prior to the last pay decision that affected the employee's pay during the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) changing period. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit with a 5-4 majority ruling. In a stated rendition of judgment the Court's majority indicated that past decisions regarding "discrete acts" of discrimination, "the period for filing an EEOC charge begins when the act occurs," i.e. when the employer's allegedly discriminatory decision relating to Ledbetter's pay was made. Accordingly, Ledbetter "should have filed an EEOC charge within 180 days after each alleged discriminatory pay decision was made and communicated to her."

Legal Process

In all practicalities of the law there is usually a statue of limitations that exist. This time period protects both parties from wrongful law suit and a wealth of unnecessary claims. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 illustrates the position taken for equal employment opportunity with explanation. According to the text, "an employee must file charges of illegal discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days after the unlawful practice occurred. If the employee first filed in a timely fashion with a state fair employment practices commission, the law extends the time for filing with the EEOC to 300 days". (Reed, 2004) According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, there are strict limitations of when to file a charge of employment discrimination. The following is a list of limits within which charges must be filed:

 A charge must be filed with EEOC within 180 days from the date of the alleged violation, in order to protect the charging party's rights.

 This 180-day filing deadline is extended to 300 days if the charge also is covered by a state or local anti-discrimination law. For ADEA charges, only state laws extend the filing limit to 300 days.

After the EEOC receives your complaint, they will notify your employer that a charge has been filed. The EEOC will then assign a priority rating and give priority to investigate charges that appear to support a violation of law. An EEOC investigation may include written requests for information, interviews with key players, review of documents, and even a visit to the facility where the alleged discrimination occurred. The EEOC may seek to settle your charge, send it to mediation, or dismiss it if no violation of law has occurred. If the EEOC dismisses your charge, you will be notified that

...