If given the choice between $360,000 and a trip to the White House, Lilly Ledbetter would probably have chosen the money. However in 2007, the Supreme Court overturned an Alabama court ruling and she lost the chance for the $360,000.

Two years later, on Jan. 29, she did make a trip to the White House to witness President Barack Obama’s signing of The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

This Act guarantees an employee’s right to sue a company six months after a discriminatory paycheck (due to race, gender, or age). With each discriminatory paycheck, the six-month statute of limitations starts over.

Ledbetter worked as the only woman supervisor for the Goodyear Tire and Rubber plant.

Shortly before she retired, Ledbetter received a pay schedule from a stranger that documented the pay discrepancy. She sued Goodyear and won at the state level.

The Alabama jury awarded her over $3 million, but the court overruled the verdict and reduced Goodyear’s liable to $360,000.

Goodyear took the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled against Ledbetter based on their interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Act guaranteed the right for an employee to file a complaint against a company within six months of the first act of unequal pay.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation meant that Ledbetter must have filed a complaint with the EEOC within 180 days of the first discriminatory paycheck – 19 years ago.

Ledbetter receives no financial gain from the passage of the act, but celebrates the signing because she believes that others will benefit.

Even though the Fair Pay Act extends the time period when an employee can sue, there is still the problem of the realization of the unequal pay. Without the stranger, Ledbetter would have never known that she had been the victim of pay disparity.

Will this Act prove to be beneficial for women or for cases of racism or ageism – or not?

Assistant Professor of Justice and Policy Studies Sanjay Marwah said that he thinks it might lead to some changes, but at this point, he believes its purpose is more symbolic.

“Laws get passed due to different pressures and different actors,” said Marwah. “There is a difference between implementation and enforcement. Pay schedules are private matters.”

Along those same lines, Career Development Counselor Vivian Lutian said, “Gloria Steinem said years ago that the most radical act that we can do is to share with one another our salaries.”

“I think she was absolutely right,” said Lutian. “But companies hate this. Some companies will even fire you if they find out that you have openly discussed your salary with other employees.”

Senior Adrienne Martin agrees, because most employers that she has worked for told her not to discuss her salary with other employees.

Martin plans to pursue a career in criminology that she says is predominately male-dominated.

“I think the act will help,” said Martin. “But one limitation is that if you sue the company then you will probably lose your job. If you want to keep your job, you’ll just not say anything.”

Besides these problems, CCE student and accounting major Debbie Turner spoke from her management experience.

“Businesses are in the money-making business,” said Turner. “Management tries to get the best people for the least amount of money.”

“This law seems to open businesses up for lawsuits from disgruntled employees,” said Turner.

In fact, Goodyear argued that Ledbetter was just a disgruntled employee. The management maintained that she did not receive equal pay because she had a record of poor job performance.

Human Resource Departments will bear the weight of documentation in order to defend the pay schedules and any lawsuits that may occur.

Reference websites for administrators in human resources have already posted lists of how to safeguard against lawsuits.

The Web site for Jefferson-Lewis Positive Strategies – Positive Solutions gives human resource directors insight by suggesting precise written documentation pertaining to retention criteria, development of specific criteria for compensation, a detailed review process, and training for management and supervisors that deal directly with salary issues.

Although Goodyear’s argument for the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her male counterparts centered on her job performance, there was not enough adequate documentation pertaining to those accusations.

Ledbetter can put those accusations and the 19 years at Goodyear behind her now. At the age of 70, she can rest in her retirement knowing that she didn’t win her monetary battle, but she did win a victory for women, even if it is only symbolic.

“Thank you for working so hard on this bill to close the loophole created by my Supreme Court case last year,” said Ledbetter to the National Organization for Women after the act was signed.

“Today is a historic day in the fight for equal pay, and even though my bill passed, there is so much work to do. I’m going to keep up this fight and I hope you will join me. Let’s keep up the good work, ladies! Together we can win equal pay,” said Ledbetter.

The loophole for the statute of limitations is closed due to the passage of the Fair Pay Act, but employees still have to depend upon strangers divulging pay scales or upon other employees’ sharing their salaries for knowledge of pay discrepancies.

Whether or not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will motivate employers to pay equally regardless of gender, race, or age or if it will help the average employee is yet to be determined.

“This act won’t help me so much,” said sophomore Lawanna Brown. “I’ve always made more money than most men I know.