Ledbetter vs. Goodyear:In the landmark 2007 Supreme Court case, Lilly Ledbetter accused Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company of gender discrimination, alleging she was given a lower salary because she is a woman. Ledbetter lost, but not because of the merits of the case. The 5-4 majority ruled against Ledbetter because she didn't file her claim within the required time period. In herdissent(Links to an external site.)

LaFleur vs. Cleveland Board of Education: This 1974 pregnancy discrimination suit on behalf of Jo Carol LaFleur and two other teachers alleged they had been forced to go on unpaid leave after the fifth month of their pregnancies. Then the head of the ACLU Women's Rights Project (which she founded), Ginsburg signed an amicus brief in support of teachers, who ultimately prevailed at the Supreme Court. Ginsburg's support for LaFleur came two years after she argued on behalf of a female Air Force pilot in a similar case and in which she concluded, "if involuntary discharge of a woman solely on the ground of her pregnancy is not sex discrimination, nothing is!" With recent high-profile pregnancy discrimination lawsuits at Google and Walmart, this case and Ginsburg's words still serve as important precedent for pregnant employees and their right to work.

Campbell-Ewald Company vs. Gomez: Ginsburg's decision in this case essentially sided with consumers in class action lawsuits. Corporate interests (Campbell-Ewald here) wanted to be able to say, "this consumer has a complaint against us, but we offered them money so their complaint is not valid." Writing for the majority opinion, Ginsburg essentially ruled that sorry, simply offering money does not invalidate that complaint.Consumer advocates took this ruling as a victory for those who want to sue big business.

List and describe your case of choice in 2-3 sentences. Then, think about and answer the following questions:

1. How does this case/decision/ruling impact you as a future business person?
2. For those justices who may not have aligned with Ginsburg, what might their argument have been?
3. Is it important to have a court that includes justices with varying ideologies, or is it better to strive for a court whose justices' ideologies are aligned?Be sure to explain and support your answer.