The crux of Ledbetter's argument against Goodyear rested on the evidence provided by anonymous notes, which disclosed significant disparities in pay between Ledbetter and her male colleagues. This evidence suggested a systematic issue of gender-based pay discrimination within the company. The discrimination was not overt but manifested through the cumulative effect of years of smaller, perhaps individually negligible, pay decisions that collectively resulted in a substantial disparity. The Supreme Court's decision in favor of Goodyear, by a 5-4 vote, was predicated on the interpretation of the statute of limitations under Title VII. The Court held that because Ledbetter did not file her claim within 180 days of Goodyear's initial discriminatory pay decision, her claim was time-barred. This ruling was met with widespread criticism for its narrow interpretation of the statute of limitations, which many believed failed to account for the nature of pay discrimination—a form of discrimination that victims might only become aware of years after its