In some cases, researchers state that women in the workforce will not get paid equally for the same job function because of gender gap pay. Ironically, since the Equal Pay Act in 1963 passed, companies have not always followed this act and paid women equally. Furthermore, it has also said that the working industry and employers have made substantial progress towards gender equality pay in the workforce. However, “despite these gains the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009, p. 1). For example, Lilly Ledbetter started off her career as a supervisor where she performed her duty quite well. She was considered an asset to her company and performed this job as any of her male counterparts. However, after years of doing the job, she found out erroneously from other workers that she was being taken advantage of and her pay compensation was less than her male counterparts. Given this outcome or situation, one could file with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, after Ledbetter tried suing Goodyear and at one point she actually won, the case was overturned. The Supreme Court delivered a 5-4 ruling due to the timing of when Ledbetter filed the complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Bader, 2013). Regardless, of knowledge of the situation, laws are put in place to help employees. So instead of doing the right thing and paying Ledbetter ethically for the same qualifications as others, Goodyear fights back. Nonetheless, these actions should hold companies liable for not paying women equally if they have the same credentials as well as inhibiting gender
In some cases, researchers state that women in the workforce will not get paid equally for the same job function because of gender gap pay. Ironically, since the Equal Pay Act in 1963 passed, companies have not always followed this act and paid women equally. Furthermore, it has also said that the working industry and employers have made substantial progress towards gender equality pay in the workforce. However, “despite these gains the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009, p. 1). For example, Lilly Ledbetter started off her career as a supervisor where she performed her duty quite well. She was considered an asset to her company and performed this job as any of her male counterparts. However, after years of doing the job, she found out erroneously from other workers that she was being taken advantage of and her pay compensation was less than her male counterparts. Given this outcome or situation, one could file with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, after Ledbetter tried suing Goodyear and at one point she actually won, the case was overturned. The Supreme Court delivered a 5-4 ruling due to the timing of when Ledbetter filed the complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Bader, 2013). Regardless, of knowledge of the situation, laws are put in place to help employees. So instead of doing the right thing and paying Ledbetter ethically for the same qualifications as others, Goodyear fights back. Nonetheless, these actions should hold companies liable for not paying women equally if they have the same credentials as well as inhibiting gender