Judicial branch · Landmark case
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
550 U.S. 618 (2007) · Opinion of the Court
What you should know
This page explains the Court’s holding in plain language, where the official text lives, and what to check next.
Supreme Court findings are not news summaries. The controlling document is the Court’s opinion, plus any concurrences or dissents. Use this profile to understand the holding, then verify language, syllabus, and docket history on official sources before relying on a secondary account. This ruling’s practical effect was reversed by Congress soon after — see the note below.
The Court held that an employee must file a pay-discrimination charge under Title VII within 180 days of the employer’s original discriminatory pay decision — not within 180 days of any later paycheck reflecting that decision, even if the employee had no way of knowing about the disparity at the time it was made. Because Lilly Ledbetter’s formal complaint came years after Goodyear’s pay decisions, even though she was still receiving smaller paychecks because of them, her claim was untimely.
Background
Lilly Ledbetter worked as an area manager at a Goodyear Tire plant for nearly 20 years. Toward the end of her career, she discovered she was being paid significantly less than every male area manager at the plant, a gap that had compounded silently for years through a series of individual pay decisions she had no reason to suspect were discriminatory at the time. She sued under Title VII and won at trial, but Goodyear argued the claim was time-barred because the actual discriminatory decisions had happened well outside Title VII’s 180-day filing window.
The Court agreed with Goodyear. Justice Alito’s majority opinion held that each paycheck, even one still reduced by an old discriminatory decision, isn’t itself a new act of discrimination that restarts the clock — the clock starts only when the discriminatory decision is actually made, whether or not the employee could reasonably have known about it at the time.
A ruling Congress reversed within two years — a rare and fast legislative response.
The decision drew immediate, widespread criticism for effectively shielding pay discrimination that’s kept hidden long enough. In January 2009, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — the first bill President Obama signed into law — which explicitly restarts the filing clock with each new discriminatory paycheck, directly overturning this ruling’s practical effect going forward.
Vote and authorship
| Majority | Alito, J. (opinion of the Court) |
|---|---|
| Join | Roberts, C.J., Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, J., joined by Stevens, Souter, Breyer |
| Superseded by | Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 |
A new violation does not occur, and a new charging period does not commence, upon the occurrence of a subsequent nondiscriminatory act that entails adverse effects resulting from past discrimination.
Justice Alito · Ledbetter v. Goodyear
How it fits in government
Judicial branch
This was a case of statutory interpretation — reading Title VII’s filing deadline — not a constitutional ruling, which is exactly why Congress could reverse its effect by rewriting the statute.
Legislative branch
A clear, fast example of Congress exercising its power to override a Supreme Court statutory interpretation it disagreed with — something Congress cannot do for constitutional rulings, only for how a law is read.
Executive branch
The EEOC, the federal agency that enforces Title VII, is directly affected by how courts read the statute’s filing deadlines.
Official records visitors may need
SupremeCourt.gov
Opinions, docket search, rules, and Court information.
Oyez
Case abstract, oral argument audio, and justice votes.
Opinion text (FindLaw)
Readable public text of the case.
GovInfo · U.S. Courts
Official publications and related federal court materials.
Related research paths
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
The federal law that directly reversed this ruling’s practical effect.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The core federal employment-discrimination law at issue in this case.
How Congress overrides court interpretations
The process by which Congress can rewrite a statute after a Supreme Court reading it disagrees with.
Landmark cases guide
Other holdings that define civil rights and employment law.