Burwell V. Hobby Lobby Case Study

Words: 720
Pages: 3

Ginsburg believes in a living Constitution, a form of jurisprudence that believes the United States Constitution is a document that adapts to the times, taking on different meanings depending on when it is interpreted. This is opposed to originalism or textualism, both of which hold generally that constitutional interpretation must give greater weight to the text of the Constitution and what the common meaning of the language was at the time of its adoption.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the dissenting opinion writer in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The case focused on the ability of a corporation, Hobby Lobby, to deny access to birth control options to their employees as mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the grounds of religious
…show more content…
Ledbetter presented evidence covering her nearly 20 years working for Goodyear and she alleged that in the final year of her employment with Goodyear, she made approximately $15,000 less than the lowest-paid male employee holding the same managerial title as Ledbetter. Goodyear filed a motion to vacate the judgment, arguing that Ledbetter was prevented under the Civil Rights Act from challenging pay decisions going back beyond 180 days. The district court denied Goodyear's motion, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding "that the jury could only examine Ledbetter's career for evidence of discrimination as far back as the last annual salary review before the start of the 180-day limitations period." As there was no evidence of discrimination in those reviews, Ledbetter's claim was dismissed. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, a five-justice majority upheld the Eleventh Circuit's ruling. The court held hat Ledbetter's claim was time-barred by Title VII's limitations period. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the court's interpretation of Title VII was not correct. She wrote, “To show how far the Court has strayed from interpretation of Title VII with fidelity to the Act’s core purpose, I return to the evidence Ledbetter