408 CHAPTER 13|CIVIL RIGHTS
policy. The ruling stated that VMI violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal
protection clause because it failed to show an “exceedingly persuasive justifi ca-
tion” for its sex-biased admissions policy.^42
Two other areas where the Court helped advance women’s rights were affi r-
mative action and protection against sexual harassment. In 1987 the Court
approved affi rmative action in a case involving a woman who was promoted over
a man despite the fact that he scored slightly higher than she did on a test. The
Court ruled that this was acceptable to make up for past discrimination.^43 The
Court made it easier to sue employers for sexual harassment in 1993, saying that
a woman did not have to reach the point of a nervous breakdown before claiming
that she was harassed; it was enough to demonstrate a pattern of “repeated and
unwanted” behavior that created a “hostile workplace environment.”^44 Later rul-
ings stated that if a single act is fl agrant, the conduct did not have to be repeated to
create a hostile environment.
The Court has also restricted the rights of women in some instances. In 1984
it ruled that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex
discrimination in “any education program or activity receiving Federal fi nancial
assistance,” applied to private colleges and universities in which students received
federal fi nancial aid. However, in a blow to equal treatment for women, the Court
said that only the program receiving federal funds could not discriminate, rather
than the institution as a whole. This ruling released many athletic programs from
their obligation to provide equal opportunity for women athletes.^45 Congress over-
turned the ruling with the Civil Rights Restoration Act in 1988.
More recently, Lilly Ledbetter sued Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for
receiving lower pay than men for the same work over a 20-year period, which she
claimed was gender discrimination. However, the Court rejected her claim, saying
that she did not meet the time limit required by the law, as the discrimination must
have occurred within 180 days of the claim. Dissenters pointed out that pay dis-
crimination usually occurs in increments over long periods, so it would be impos-
sible to recognize the discrimination within 180 days. The long-standing policy
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was that each new
paycheck restarted the 180-day clock as a new act of discrimination, but the Court
overturned that policy, making it almost impossible to sue for discriminatory payLEVELS OF SCRUTINY IN DISCRIMINATION LAW SUITS
NUTS & bolts
When deciding a lawsuit, federal judges use different levels of scrutiny to determine whether discrimination is allowed, based
on the status of the plaintiff.
rational basis test The use of evidence to suggest that differences in the behavior of two groups can rationalize unequal
treatment of these groups, such as charging 16- to 21-year-olds higher prices for auto insurance than people over 21
because younger people have higher accident rates.
intermediate scrutiny test The middle level of scrutiny the courts use when determining whether unequal treatment is
justifi ed by the effect of a law; this is the standard used for gender-based discrimination cases and for many cases based
on sexual orientation.
strict scrutiny test The highest level of scrutiny the courts use when determining whether unequal treatment is justifi ed
by the effect of a law. It is applied in all cases involving race. Laws rarely pass the strict scrutiny standard; a law that
discriminates based on race must be shown to serve some “compelling state interest” in order to be upheld.