In 1979, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Gadsden, Alabama, hired Lilly Ledbetter. She worked long hours as an overnight supervisor on the late shift from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. and labored alongside men for nearly 20 years, doing the same work as they did for the company.

By the time she was ready to retire in 1998, Ledbetter was earning $3,727 per month. She had no idea what the men were making in comparison to her until shortly before her retirement. As her last days on the job drew near, she learned that her male counterparts, who held her same position and worked the same job, were all being paid substantially more than she was. They made between $4,286 and $5,236 per month. Company policy prohibited employees from speaking to one another about pay, so Ledbetter had not known all those years that her wages were less than those of her male equivalents.

Understandably, Ledbetter felt cheated and filed a complaint against Goodyear with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Then she sued the company for gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that the company had given her a low salary because of her gender. Goodyear denied her allegations, stating that Ledbetter was paid less because the quality of her work was poor. A jury awarded Ledbetter $3.6 million. Even though the amount was reduced to $300,000 by a district court, she had still won a monumental case for the cause of women everywhere.

Goodyear appealed, and the 2007 employment discrimination case Ledbetter v. Goodyear eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Court ruled by a 5–4 vote that Ledbetter's claim was time-barred by Title VII's limitations period. Title VII holds discriminatory intent, or the deliberate act of causing harm, as a crucial element of a claim, and Ledbetter would have needed to file within 180 days of a discriminatory salary decision to fall within the allotted time period. The Court did not consider it relevant that the paychecks Ledbetter received within 180 days before her claim were affected by past discrimination. Unfortunately, each instance of Goodyear's discriminatory intent fell outside the limitations period.

The Court stated that the short statute of limitations, the period of time an employee has to file a complaint against the employer, is intended to ensure quick resolution of pay. Such instances become more difficult to defend as time passes. If the Court had accepted Ledbetter's argument, the decision would have allowed discriminatory pay decisions from years ago to be the subjects of Title VII claims. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg clearly sided with Ledbetter, calling the majority's ruling "a cramped interpretation of Title VII, incompatible with the statute's broad remedial purpose." She suggested that Congress might correct the problem by amending, or changing, the law.

Though Ledbetter lost her case in the Supreme Court, she continued the valiant crusade for equal employment. Senator Barack Obama was inspired by Ledbetter's effort. When he became president, the first bill Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. This law amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that discriminatory intent is recognized even if the events of intent occur outside the statute of limitations. This act is a victory for American working women, at least in principle, and raises their hopes for future pay equality in the workplace.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by extending the statute of limitations for filing compensation discrimination claims. It was Congress's response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling against Ledbetter in her fair pay case. Though I applaud the government for passing the Fair Pay Act and assuring women that they will receive "equal pay for equal work," in my opinion the legislation has not gone far enough to assure women's equal compensation at work. The facts speak for themselves. In the time since the act was signed into law, little has been done to close the pay gap that exists between male and female employees. In 2009, the year the Fair Pay Act was adopted, women on average earned 77% of men's wages; unfortunately, in 2010, women's wages had not improved much and had risen only to 77.4% of men's.

Currently, women make up half of America's workforce, and in two-thirds of American families, the mother is the primary breadwinner! Yet women earn less than their male counterparts in ALL 50 states! Even when we adjust for educational level, women with the same education, doing the same job as men, can earn up to a million dollars less than men over a 40-year working career! This disparity is disgraceful!

In 2012, women experienced yet another setback when the Senate defeated the Paycheck Fairness Act. Some legislators remain committed to ensuring any future bill like this one does not die. They have promised to introduce more wage legislation to close the loopholes that still hamper efforts to achieve fair pay in the workplace. It is clear the pay gap still exists in the workplace and new legislation is vitally necessary to close the gap once and for all. Contact your congressional representative immediately and insist on his or her continued support for new wage equity legislation. Our futures depend on it.