The time for filing charges of discrimination: the supreme court's decision and its aftermath
The US Supreme Court's five to four decision in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co Inc resolved a conflict among the courts of appeals regarding the proper application of the statute of limitations to pay discrimination claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Titl...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Employee Relations Law Journal 2007-12, Vol.33 (3), p.113 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 113 |
| container_title | Employee Relations Law Journal |
| container_volume | 33 |
| creator | Lavin, Howard S DiMichele, Elizabeth E |
| description | The US Supreme Court's five to four decision in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co Inc resolved a conflict among the courts of appeals regarding the proper application of the statute of limitations to pay discrimination claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The Ledbetter decision held that petitioner Lilly Ledbetter's Title VII claim was untimely because she did not file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the allegedly discriminatory pay decisions. The potential long term impact of Ledbetter remains unclear given the likelihood of federal legislation overturning the decision and the uncertainty about whether state anti-discrimination laws would be interpreted to follow the Ledbetter decision. At least in the short term, however, Ledbetter governs pay discrimination claims under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_194223445</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A171926411</galeid><sourcerecordid>A171926411</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g201t-c68d978b832ed09fd1a147e514f440693c71e5e4b17781f2d7405425de779c663</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpt0E1LxDAQBuAeFFxX_0PEg6dKkqZN4m1Z_IIFL-tRSjaZdCNtsibp_zewXoQyhznM8w7MXFQrjKWohZDiqrpO6Rtj0jDeraqv_RFQdhMgGyKybnR-QPqo4gAJBYuMSzq6yXmVXfBPKBee5lOEktBhjvkhIQPapTJFyhvkckLKZoiTyseb6tKqMcHtX19Xny_P--1bvft4fd9udvVAMcm17oSRXBxEQ8FgaQ1RhHFoCbOM4U42mhNogR0I54JYajjDLaOtAc6l7rpmXd2d955i-Jkh5T7CKcSceiIZpQ1jbTH3ZzOoEXrnbchR6anc128IJ5J2jJCi6gU1gIeoxuChfAj--8cFX8rA5PRC4BdQjHhG</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>194223445</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The time for filing charges of discrimination: the supreme court's decision and its aftermath</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Lavin, Howard S ; DiMichele, Elizabeth E</creator><creatorcontrib>Lavin, Howard S ; DiMichele, Elizabeth E</creatorcontrib><description>The US Supreme Court's five to four decision in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co Inc resolved a conflict among the courts of appeals regarding the proper application of the statute of limitations to pay discrimination claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The Ledbetter decision held that petitioner Lilly Ledbetter's Title VII claim was untimely because she did not file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the allegedly discriminatory pay decisions. The potential long term impact of Ledbetter remains unclear given the likelihood of federal legislation overturning the decision and the uncertainty about whether state anti-discrimination laws would be interpreted to follow the Ledbetter decision. At least in the short term, however, Ledbetter governs pay discrimination claims under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0098-8898</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ERLJDC</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc</publisher><subject>Civil rights ; Discovery rule ; District courts ; Employment discrimination ; Evidence ; Federal court decisions ; Labor law ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Limitation of actions ; Performance evaluation ; Questionnaires ; Sex discrimination ; State court decisions ; State courts ; State laws ; Statutes of limitations ; Supreme Court decisions ; Trials ; Wages & salaries</subject><ispartof>Employee Relations Law Journal, 2007-12, Vol.33 (3), p.113</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2007 Aspen Publishers, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Aspen Publishers, Inc. Winter 2007</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>312,314,776,780,787</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lavin, Howard S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DiMichele, Elizabeth E</creatorcontrib><title>The time for filing charges of discrimination: the supreme court's decision and its aftermath</title><title>Employee Relations Law Journal</title><description>The US Supreme Court's five to four decision in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co Inc resolved a conflict among the courts of appeals regarding the proper application of the statute of limitations to pay discrimination claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The Ledbetter decision held that petitioner Lilly Ledbetter's Title VII claim was untimely because she did not file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the allegedly discriminatory pay decisions. The potential long term impact of Ledbetter remains unclear given the likelihood of federal legislation overturning the decision and the uncertainty about whether state anti-discrimination laws would be interpreted to follow the Ledbetter decision. At least in the short term, however, Ledbetter governs pay discrimination claims under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991.</description><subject>Civil rights</subject><subject>Discovery rule</subject><subject>District courts</subject><subject>Employment discrimination</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Labor law</subject><subject>Laws, regulations and rules</subject><subject>Limitation of actions</subject><subject>Performance evaluation</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Sex discrimination</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>State courts</subject><subject>State laws</subject><subject>Statutes of limitations</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><subject>Trials</subject><subject>Wages & salaries</subject><issn>0098-8898</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpt0E1LxDAQBuAeFFxX_0PEg6dKkqZN4m1Z_IIFL-tRSjaZdCNtsibp_zewXoQyhznM8w7MXFQrjKWohZDiqrpO6Rtj0jDeraqv_RFQdhMgGyKybnR-QPqo4gAJBYuMSzq6yXmVXfBPKBee5lOEktBhjvkhIQPapTJFyhvkckLKZoiTyseb6tKqMcHtX19Xny_P--1bvft4fd9udvVAMcm17oSRXBxEQ8FgaQ1RhHFoCbOM4U42mhNogR0I54JYajjDLaOtAc6l7rpmXd2d955i-Jkh5T7CKcSceiIZpQ1jbTH3ZzOoEXrnbchR6anc128IJ5J2jJCi6gU1gIeoxuChfAj--8cFX8rA5PRC4BdQjHhG</recordid><startdate>20071222</startdate><enddate>20071222</enddate><creator>Lavin, Howard S</creator><creator>DiMichele, Elizabeth E</creator><general>Aspen Publishers, Inc</general><scope>ILT</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0F</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20071222</creationdate><title>The time for filing charges of discrimination: the supreme court's decision and its aftermath</title><author>Lavin, Howard S ; DiMichele, Elizabeth E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g201t-c68d978b832ed09fd1a147e514f440693c71e5e4b17781f2d7405425de779c663</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Civil rights</topic><topic>Discovery rule</topic><topic>District courts</topic><topic>Employment discrimination</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Labor law</topic><topic>Laws, regulations and rules</topic><topic>Limitation of actions</topic><topic>Performance evaluation</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Sex discrimination</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>State courts</topic><topic>State laws</topic><topic>Statutes of limitations</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><topic>Trials</topic><topic>Wages & salaries</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lavin, Howard S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DiMichele, Elizabeth E</creatorcontrib><collection>LegalTrac</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI-INFORM Complete</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM global</collection><collection>ProQuest</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health Management Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Employee Relations Law Journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lavin, Howard S</au><au>DiMichele, Elizabeth E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The time for filing charges of discrimination: the supreme court's decision and its aftermath</atitle><jtitle>Employee Relations Law Journal</jtitle><date>2007-12-22</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>113</spage><pages>113-</pages><issn>0098-8898</issn><coden>ERLJDC</coden><abstract>The US Supreme Court's five to four decision in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co Inc resolved a conflict among the courts of appeals regarding the proper application of the statute of limitations to pay discrimination claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The Ledbetter decision held that petitioner Lilly Ledbetter's Title VII claim was untimely because she did not file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the allegedly discriminatory pay decisions. The potential long term impact of Ledbetter remains unclear given the likelihood of federal legislation overturning the decision and the uncertainty about whether state anti-discrimination laws would be interpreted to follow the Ledbetter decision. At least in the short term, however, Ledbetter governs pay discrimination claims under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Aspen Publishers, Inc</pub></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0098-8898 |
| ispartof | Employee Relations Law Journal, 2007-12, Vol.33 (3), p.113 |
| issn | 0098-8898 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_reports_194223445 |
| source | Business Source Complete |
| subjects | Civil rights Discovery rule District courts Employment discrimination Evidence Federal court decisions Labor law Laws, regulations and rules Limitation of actions Performance evaluation Questionnaires Sex discrimination State court decisions State courts State laws Statutes of limitations Supreme Court decisions Trials Wages & salaries |
| title | The time for filing charges of discrimination: the supreme court's decision and its aftermath |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T17%3A57%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20time%20for%20filing%20charges%20of%20discrimination:%20the%20supreme%20court's%20decision%20and%20its%20aftermath&rft.jtitle=Employee%20Relations%20Law%20Journal&rft.au=Lavin,%20Howard%20S&rft.date=2007-12-22&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=113&rft.pages=113-&rft.issn=0098-8898&rft.coden=ERLJDC&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA171926411%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=194223445&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A171926411&rfr_iscdi=true |