In assessing the potential impact of nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, we can simply consider the words of Patrick Leahy, liberal Democratic Senator from Vermont:  "One need look no further than the Lilly Ledbetter case to understand the impact the decisions of the Supreme Court have on the lives of countless Americans."  Leahy, who made this statement as part of a short speech he gave during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings last week, was referring to the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1998.

Lilly Ledbetter was a middle manager at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in its Gadsden, Alabama plant.  Following early retirement in 1998, she received an anonymous tip that her male peers in middle management at that plant had been paid more than she had, some substantially more.  Upon receiving this information, she sued Goodyear for gender discrimination, alleging that although her pay had been based on her performance evaluations, those evaluations were biased against her because she was a woman.  She won the first round in Federal District Court, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision in favor of Goodyear, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to hear the case.  The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the same way the Eleventh Circuit did, finding that the law allowed for damages for discrimination occurring only during the 180-day "charging period" which began 180 days prior to Ms. Ledbetter starting the EEOC process in March, 1998, because that was how Congress wrote the law.

Supreme Court dissenters, led by Justice Ginsberg, objected on the grounds that acts of discrimination are incremental, potentially occurring over a long period of time and not just confined to arbitrary periods such as 180 days.  Be that as it may, Congress wrote the law to cover 180-day periods, perhaps believing, quite logically in my opinion, that any blatant acts of discrimination would quickly become obvious to all, at which time the parties discriminated against would take steps to remedy them in court.  The 180-day statute of limitations was included for the same reason that statutes of limitation are always implemented:  to prevent aggrieved parties from bringing actions years later, possibly alleging discrimination in retaliation for actions not at all related to discriminatory activity.

The principle of equal pay for equal work is a sound one, so sound that there need be no law to enforce it.  Furthermore, there is even less need the likes of Sonia Sotomayor to legislate it from the bench.  Think about it for a minute and you'll see why.  If Ms. Ledbetter was such an outstanding Goodyear employee that they couldn't prosper without her work, they'd have made very sure she was well-paid enough that there was no chance any other company would hire her away from them and gain a competitive advantage from her efforts.  This principle is in fact generally true, as companies that want to stay in business by making a profit need good, productive employees to give them an advantage over their competitors.  Likewise, their competitors have the same strong incentive to try to hire away top employees with, among other inducements, higher pay.  It happens all the time, especially at the top levels, but it can and does happen with middle management as well.  In fact, many workers keep a current resume "on the street" in case such opportunities come along.

The fact that Lilly Ledbetter apparently had no idea that her male counterparts were better compensated than she was is therefore telling.  If Ms. Ledbetter thought she was so outstanding that she deserved more pay, why did she not seek employment elsewhere at a higher rate, or at least use the threat of that to induce Goodyear to give her better raises?  The fact is that while equal work for equal pay is a great theoretical concept, in practice, no two employees are ever the same.  In the case of women employees, they frequently choose to take maternity leave to have children.  While I think having and raising children is commendable, it's also frequently true that mothers are absent for long periods for maternity leaves, during which time they are of absolutely no value, competitively speaking, to their companies.  This puts them at a competitive disadvantage relative to their male counterparts, which can be the reason men make more than women in the same or similar positions; in short, the positions are the same, but the quality of work isn't.  This really isn't a difficult concept at all.  I'm not saying this is what happened with Lilly Ledbetter, although I did note she has two children, so it's certainly within the realm of possibility.

However, if a woman feels she's worth more and is being denied fair compensation due to gender (or some other) discrimination, she's certainly entitled in our free market economy to send out her resume in search of another.  Slavery's been illegal for over 140 years in this country, and  your employer doesn't own you or your labor, so get another job!  When Pat Leahy says this case illustrates the impact of Supreme Court decisions on the average American, he's more correct than he realizes, so let's have Sonia Sotomayor get another job, one that doesn't involve sitting on the Supreme Court!