Civil Rights Cases: Ledbetter v. Goodyear & NIFLA v. Becerra Analysis

This case study provides briefs of two significant legal cases: Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. The Ledbetter case addresses gender discrimination in pay, focusing on the statute of limitations and the Supreme Court's ruling on timely filing of discrimination claims. The NIFLA v. Becerra case examines the Reproductive FACT Act and its implications for freedom of speech under the First Amendment, with the Supreme Court siding against the act to protect individual expression. Both case briefs outline the parties involved, relevant facts, legal issues, holdings, and rationales behind the court decisions. Desklib offers a platform to explore similar solved assignments and study resources for students.

Civil Right Movement-Women and Women Rights
Running Head: COMMERCIAL LAW 0
1 0 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 8
Student’s Name

Civil Right Movement- Women and Women Rights
1
Contents
Contents
Contents.......................................................................................................................................................1
Case 1 : Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007)...................................................2
Case 2 National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. (2018).................................2

Civil Right Movement- Women and Women Rights
2
Case 1 : Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007)
I. Parties:- Following individuals and authorities were the lead parties to the case.
i. A person named Ledbetter was the plaintiff and company named Goodyear Tire
and Rubber Company was the defendant of the case.
ii. District Court
iii. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
iv. Supreme Court
II. Facts:- In the given case, the plaintiff has made an argument that the defendant, being
her employer made discrimination between her and other male employees based on
gender. This was the reason that her pay was lower in comparison to other workers at the
time of retirements were at the time of joining it was equal.
III. Issue: - Issue involved in the case was the provisions of the statute of limitations.
Supreme Court ruled that in the cases of discrimination, the issue must be raised within a
period of 180 days (Legalmomentum.org, 2018). However in the case, when the plaintiff
raised the concern, the subjective period lapsed already.
IV. Holdings: - Decision was given in the favor of plaintiff and defendant been held liable.
V. Rationale: - Justice Ginsburg stated that the discrimination issue often occurs over a long
period. It was argued that pay discrimination is not similar to adverse action, for instance,
termination and therefore employer must be held liable even after the period of 180 days.
Case 2 National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. (2018)
I. Parties: - Following individuals and authorities were the lead parties to the case.

Civil Right Movement- Women and Women Rights
3
i. Crisis pregnancy center (CPC) and Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) were the
plaintiffs of the case.
ii. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) was the representator of
CPCs
iii. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
iv. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
v. Supreme court
II. Facts:- CPC and PJI found the proposed act namely Reproductive FACT Act in against
of the provisions of first management that provides right to free exercise and freedom of
speech and hence applied for the injunction of the act.
III. Issue:- The ninth circuit court found the argument of plaintiff baseless and rejected their
application stating that it was a neutral law and has general applicability. Plaintiff filed
the appeal to the Supreme Court (Supreme.justia.com, 2018).
IV. Holdings:- Supreme court revised the decision of the lower court and been agreed on the
fact that FACT act would have a negative impact on the freedom of speech granted under
the first amendment.
V. Rationale: - The act brings a serious threat where the government would be able to
publish it is own message rather than individual speech, expression and thought and
therefore the same should not come into force.

Civil Right Movement- Women and Women Rights
4
Reference
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007)
Legalmomentum.org. (2018). Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Retrieved From:
https://www.legalmomentum.org/legal-cases/ledbetter-v-goodyear-tire-rubber-co
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. (2018)
Supreme.justia.com. (2018). National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585
U.S. ___ (2018) Retrieved From: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-
1140/