Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

by Irin Carmon

Ledbetter’s initial readiness to give her employer the benefit of the doubt should not preclude her from later seeking redress for the continuing payment to her of a salary depressed because of her sex. Yet, as the court reads Title VII, each and every pay decision Ledbetter did not properly challenge wiped the slate clean. Never mind the cumulative effect of a series of decisions that together set her pay well below that of every male Area Manager. Knowingly carrying past pay discrimination forward must be treated as lawful. Ledbetter may not be compensated under Title VII for the lower pay she was in fact receiving when she complained to the EEOC. Notably, the same denial of relief would occur if Ledbetter encountered pay discrimination based on race, religion, age, national origin, or disability. This is not the first time this court has ordered a cramped interpretation of Title VII, incompatible with the statute’s broad remedial purpose. In 1991, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act that effectively overruled several of this court’s similarly restrictive decisions, including one on which the court relies today. Today, the ball again lies in Congress’s court. . . . The legislature has cause to note and to correct this court’s parsimonious reading of Title VII.