I would like to relate the work history of a relative of mine. She is a production worker in a facility that makes a product for defense contractors. Hers is a specialized department, housed in an environmentally-controlled room separated from the rest of the facility.
She has worked there for seven years, and is one of the most senior of the production crew, because the company has terrible management and a very high turnover. It is not unusual for two or more employees to walk out on any given day.
But her crew is very small. Four years ago, it consisted of her supervisor, her and one other crewmember. Her supervisor was wont to take long lunches to go golfing with other managers, and was not well-versed in how to do the production itself. She learned by the book -- literally. If she had a project and did not know how to do it, she got the book out and taught herself.
Two years ago, the supervisor got promoted. Company policy requires all job openings to be posted, but in this case the company simultaneously announced that one supervisor was promoted and a new supervisor was hired from outside. She learned that her new supervisor was earning over 25% more than she was. That was not unusual. What was unusual was that she was required to train him. And the company added another production worker to her crew. She was required to train him, too.
The co-worker lasted less than a year, and was transferred to the general production area. The supervisor lasted a little longer, but not much. He was a wreck. Product did not get shipped out on time. He frequently broke down crying on the job, sobbing that nobody liked him. He got a raise. Finally he left.
Although the position was again not posted, she asked to and was given permission to apply for the position of supervisor. After deliberating for almost two months, the company decided to make her the supervisor. She was given a raise--to almost 85% of what the guy she replaced was making. (The golfing supervisor's pay is unknown.)
During these two months and the month that she was supervisor, she and her co-worker got all product out on time, never missing one deadline. Two woman did the job that four workers could not get done on time before.
The company announced a new criterion for earning a raise; raises would be determined, in part, by how much overtime an employee puts in. Doing the job, getting it done on time with fewer employees, and not using overtime to do so was not considered a good business practice. (This leads me to believe the contracts were wasteful cost-plus contracts, but that's a diary for another day.)
One day a supervisor from another department came in and dropped a bunch of work in her department. I should point out that the general manager has weekly "rallies" and one of his repeated points is that employees should take initiative and take on new responsibilities, for which they should expect extra pay. She jokingly asked how much extra pay she and her co-worker would get for taking on extra work. This comment was reported to management, and the next day she was demoted for having a bad attitude and her supervisory raise was taken away.
She now works in a department of two women with no direct supervisor. She has never been told that she has to prioritize the production, order supplies, generate the reports, etc. that the supervisor would do, but there is nobody else to do it and it is expected to be done. Product continues to go out on time. She still does not work overtime.
Does she have a Lilly Ledbetter case? Absolutely. And we know what the company's defense will be: it's not that she got paid less because she was a female, it's just that she had a bad attitude, you see. I would love to be the lawyer who has management on the stand and asks them, "So you say she had a bad attitude. Can you think of any reason why that might be?"