This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Kevin K. Russell (Petitioner), according to Kevin K. Russell (Petitioner), lilly M. Ledbetter alleges that Goodyear paid her less than similarly situated male employees because of her sex, raising a Title VII wage‑discrimination claim.
Background and question before the Court
According to Kevin K. Russell (Petitioner), according to Kevin K. Russell (Petitioner), a jury found that at the time petitioner filed a charge with the EEOC, Goodyear paid her less for each week’s work than similarly situated male employees, and did so because of her sex.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the rule for paycheck decisions is different from the rule for other kinds of decisions.
Justice Alito asked whether a plaintiff must show intent to discriminate at the time a particular paycheck is issued.
Justice Kennedy further asked whether the decision‑maker must know that the continued pay structure is discriminatory.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens questioned liability when management does not know of a longstanding discriminatory pay policy.
Justice Souter asked what the plaintiff’s burden of proof is regarding pay disparity between women and men.
- [1] 7b6981197f99cbbf3973-r1-f41e98c37c84f92e.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 7b6981197f99cbbf3973-r1-f41e98c37c84f92e.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 7b6981197f99cbbf3973-r1-f41e98c37c84f92e.pdf, p. 10
- [4] 7b6981197f99cbbf3973-r1-f41e98c37c84f92e.pdf, p. 19
- [5] 7b6981197f99cbbf3973-r1-f41e98c37c84f92e.pdf, p. 20
- [6] 7b6981197f99cbbf3973-r1-f41e98c37c84f92e.pdf, p. 22
What each side argues
Petitioner (Lilly M. Ledbetter)
According to Kevin K. Russell (Petitioner), according to Kevin K. Russell (Petitioner), a jury found that Goodyear paid petitioner less than similarly situated male employees because of her sex.
According to Petitioner (Kevin K. Russell), according to Petitioner (Kevin K. Russell), petitioner argues that intentional disparate wage discrimination is unlawful under Title VII and that the violation occurred within the limitations period, even if the intent was formed earlier.
Counsel Glen D. Nager contends that a claim of intentional discrimination is timely and actionable only if the discriminatory acts occurred during the Title VII charge‑filing period.
Respondent (The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc.)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kennedy asked whether the rule for paycheck decisions differs from the rule for other decisions.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned whether a plaintiff must show intent to discriminate at the time a particular paycheck is issued.
Justice Kennedy further asked whether the decision‑maker must know that the continued pay structure is discriminatory.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens raised the issue of liability when management is unaware of a longstanding discriminatory pay policy.
Justice Souter asked what the plaintiff’s burden of proof is regarding pay disparity between women and men.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 7b6981197f99cbbf3973-r1-f41e98c37c84f92e.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.