Master Supreme Court held that Title VII's charge-filing period for pay discrimination runs from the employer's discrete pay-setting decision, not from each paycheck—prompting Congress to enact the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. with this comprehensive case brief.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire is a landmark Supreme Court decision on the accrual of Title VII pay discrimination claims. The Court held that the statutory time limit to file an EEOC charge runs from the date the employer makes and communicates a discrete compensation decision, not from the issuance of each paycheck reflecting that decision. This ruling significantly narrowed the so-called "paycheck accrual" approach that many lower courts and practitioners had assumed applied to compensation discrimination claims.
The decision triggered a swift and consequential legislative response. In 2009, Congress enacted the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (LLFPA), which effectively overrode the Court's accrual rule in compensation cases by deeming each paycheck (and other compensation-related events) that carries forward a discriminatory decision as a new actionable practice that restarts the charge-filing period. For law students, Ledbetter and the LLFPA together illustrate a critical interaction among statutory text, judicial interpretation, policy concerns about pay secrecy and cumulative harm, and legislative correction.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company as an area manager at a plant in Gadsden, Alabama, from 1979 until her retirement in 1998. Goodyear set and adjusted salaries through periodic, supervisor-driven evaluations. Over time, Ledbetter's pay lagged substantially behind that of comparable male managers. She alleged that biased evaluations and pay-setting decisions by her supervisors caused the disparity. In 1998, after receiving an anonymous note indicating her pay was significantly lower than male peers', she filed an EEOC charge alleging sex-based pay discrimination under Title VII. Alabama is a non-deferral jurisdiction, so Title VII's 180-day charge-filing period applied. At trial, a jury found for Ledbetter and awarded back pay and substantial compensatory and punitive damages; the district court reduced the compensatory/punitive portion to Title VII's statutory cap while awarding back pay. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that Ledbetter's Title VII claim was time-barred because the allegedly discriminatory pay-setting decisions occurred outside the 180-day filing window, and subsequent paychecks merely reflected past decisions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
For a Title VII compensation discrimination claim, does the EEOC charge-filing period run from each paycheck that reflects an alleged discriminatory pay decision, or from the earlier, discrete act of setting compensation when the decision was made and communicated to the employee?
Under Title VII, a plaintiff must file an EEOC charge within 180 days (or 300 days in deferral jurisdictions) "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). Discrete discriminatory acts—such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or a compensation-setting decision—occur on the day they happen and must be challenged within the statutory period. See National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002). The mere present effects of a past discriminatory act do not restart the limitations period. Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986), does not treat paychecks as discrete acts where no discriminatory decision occurred within the limitations period.
The Title VII charge-filing period for a pay discrimination claim begins when the employer makes and communicates the discriminatory compensation decision. Later paychecks that simply implement that decision are not new, discrete acts that restart the filing period. Ledbetter's claim was time-barred because she did not file her EEOC charge within 180 days after any discriminatory pay-setting decision.
The Court, relying on Morgan, emphasized that Title VII's limitations period attaches to discrete discriminatory acts and not to the continuing effects of those acts. Compensation-setting is such a discrete act: the unlawful employment practice—if any—occurs when the employer decides and communicates the employee's pay. Paychecks issued thereafter are the "effects" of that earlier decision, not separate violations. The majority rejected Ledbetter's reliance on Bazemore, explaining that Bazemore involved employers who continued a discriminatory pay structure into the post–Title VII era and where at least one discriminatory decision or application of a discriminatory system occurred within the charging period. By contrast, Ledbetter could not identify any discriminatory pay-setting decision within the 180 days preceding her EEOC charge; she instead sought to aggregate past discriminatory decisions and characterize each paycheck as a fresh act of discrimination. That approach, the Court noted, would subvert Title VII's prompt-filing requirement and the certainty it provides to employers and employees. The Court also declined to adopt a general discovery rule for Title VII claims, noting that Congress set a clear temporal trigger and provided limited equitable doctrines (tolling, estoppel, waiver) for exceptional cases. Concerns about pay secrecy and the difficulty of detecting pay discrimination, the majority concluded, were policy arguments for Congress, not the judiciary. Justice Ginsburg's dissent argued that pay-setting often occurs incrementally and opaquely, such that each paycheck should be actionable because it perpetuates discriminatory compensation. She reasoned that the majority's rule undermines Title VII's remedial purpose and misreads Bazemore. The majority, however, held firm to the discrete-act framework and affirmed the Eleventh Circuit.
Ledbetter crystallized the discrete-act accrual rule for Title VII claims, restricting plaintiffs from reviving stale pay discrimination claims based solely on the issuance of later paychecks. The decision immediately impacted litigation strategy, compliance, and human resources practices concerning pay setting and documentation. Equally important, Ledbetter catalyzed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which expressly provides that, for compensation discrimination claims under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and the Rehabilitation Act, each paycheck, benefits payment, or other compensation event that reflects a discriminatory decision restarts the charge-filing clock (while limiting back pay to two years). For law students, the case is a foundational study in statutory interpretation, the Morgan discrete-act framework, limits of the continuing violation doctrine, and the dynamic relationship between courts and Congress in shaping employment discrimination law.
The Court held that Title VII's 180/300-day EEOC charge-filing period runs from the date the employer makes and communicates the discriminatory compensation decision, not from each subsequent paycheck. Later paychecks that merely reflect the prior decision are not new, discrete acts and do not restart the limitations period.
The LLFPA effectively overruled Ledbetter for compensation claims by providing that an unlawful employment practice occurs each time (1) a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, (2) an individual becomes subject to it, or (3) an individual is affected by its application, including each paycheck or benefits payment. This restarts the charge-filing period with each affected paycheck, while limiting back pay to the two years preceding the EEOC charge. The LLFPA applies to Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act.
Morgan held that discrete discriminatory acts are individually actionable and must be timely charged, while hostile work environment claims can span multiple acts under a continuing practice theory. Ledbetter applied Morgan's discrete-act framework to pay discrimination, characterizing pay-setting decisions as discrete acts that accrue when made and communicated. Paychecks implementing those decisions were treated as mere effects, not new violations—until Congress altered that result for compensation claims via the LLFPA.
Ledbetter addressed Title VII's charge-filing rule and did not alter the EPA's framework. The EPA has different standards (equal pay for equal work) and a different limitations regime (generally two years, three for willful violations), with no EEOC charge prerequisite before suit. Moreover, courts have long treated each unequal paycheck as actionable under the EPA. Plaintiffs often plead both EPA and Title VII claims where facts permit.
Under Ledbetter's original rule, a late discovery would not, by itself, restart Title VII's clock, though equitable doctrines (tolling, estoppel, waiver) might apply in rare cases of employer concealment or extraordinary circumstances. After the LLFPA, for compensation discrimination, each paycheck reflecting the disparity restarts the limitations period, enabling timely EEOC charges even if the original decision is old, subject to the two-year back-pay limit.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear sharply limited the accrual of Title VII pay discrimination claims by tying the EEOC charge-filing deadline to the original compensation decision rather than to each paycheck. Applying Morgan's discrete-act framework, the Court treated later paychecks as non-actionable effects of earlier decisions, rejecting a broad paycheck-accrual theory and a general discovery rule for Title VII.
Congress responded with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, restoring a paycheck-accrual approach for compensation discrimination under several federal statutes and demonstrating the dynamic interplay between judicial interpretation and legislative policy choices. For lawyers and students alike, the case and its legislative aftermath underscore the importance of timing, pleading strategy, and statutory design in employment discrimination litigation.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →