I was recently intrigued by a question in a marketing piece fromone of the major carriers for employment practices liability: "Whois Lilly Ledbetter and how is she helping you sell EPLI?"

Amid the ever-changing legal, economic and social landscape thataffects employee-employer relations, numerous articles describe thenumber of charges filed with the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission, average costs of defense, trends in the types ofallegations and by whom, etc. But the Lilly Ledbetter case seemedto put a personal spin on the ever-ongoing issue. So I picked upthe telephone and called her in Jacksonville, Ala.

To reiterate, Ms. Ledbetterworked as a supervisor for Goodyear Tire from 1979 until 1998, atwhich time she took early retirement upon Goodyear's closing of itsGadsen, Ala., location. As many corporations required, she hadoriginally signed an agreement not to discuss salary issues withfellow employees. Just before retirement, however, someoneanonymously gave her information that compared her salary withsalaries of three male co-workers.

Ensuing developments revealed that at retirement she was earning$3,727 monthly compared to 15 male co-workers who earned between$4,286 and $5,236 each month.

In November 1998, she sued, claiming pay discrimination underTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of1963.

During our telephone conversation, Ms. Ledbetter pointed out theissues that prompted her suits go beyond a monthly salarydifferential into other areas such as lower pay for overtime,amount of money contributed to a 401(k) plan, Social Security,one's company retirement plan and often the impact felt on otherfamily members for clothing, food, quality education, care forelderly parents and so forth.

In the ensuing court cases, Lilly Ledbetter won her case indistrict court and was awarded $3 million (later reduced to$300,000). But as anticipated, Goodyear appealed and the Court ofAppeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling.The United States Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor ofGoodyear as well.

At issue in the ruling was the 180-day statute of limitationsapplicable "after the alleged unlawful employment practiceoccurred"—in this case discrimination as respects compensationbased on gender. Ms. Ledbetter had claimed that each check issuedis an act of discrimination; the court held no evidence of intendeddiscrimination existed in the issuance of compensation.

Authors of the minority opinion felt, in part, that compensationamounts are nearly always confidential—not available for comparisonamong employees, difficult to determine, occur in small incrementsover long periods of time, concluding that the 180-day statuteshould not apply in the Ledbetter case.

Enter the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009,which among other things restarts the statute of limitations witheach check issued on a discriminatory basis. The impact of thislegislation is sure to be felt for years to come.

While many may be tempted to say "Hooray for Lilly Ledbetter," afurther concern is the degree to which small and midsize businessowners are aware of the above example and other such changes inlocal, state or federal laws enhancing the rights of theiremployees within the legal system. (The same issues apply withnonprofit entities.)

And while many corporations are astutely aware of the changinglegal landscape, one suspects that most are not.

More than ever, there is a need to promote the purchase of EPLIfor an employer's protection. It could be the most importantinsurance purchase a business owner makes today.

Even though employers are many times over moreconscientious and thoughtful than in the past when it comes toemployee policies such as gender and diversity issues, sexualharassment, and various forms of discrimination, they should alsorealize that:

• Employees also are increasingly aware of theirrights under the law.

• Even when an employee's case might seem to begroundless and without merit, lawsuits can be quite expensive andtime-consuming for smaller business owners.

When agents and brokers take the time to explain the risks andcoverages of EPLI, they are very likely to bind the policy.

More and more, carriers are expanding the availability of thisclass of business. So far, the ever-increasing number of hasseemingly not deterred the market.

Most major carriers can provide examples of prior claims and theamounts paid for either defense, settlement or both within theirmarketing material. Or they can provide equally important exampleswhere the employer won his or her case but still had a large legalbill.

Such material can be a real asset in getting an insured'sattention. The key is to approach a client with enough examples sothat he or she can say, "Hey, that might happen to me!"

If feasible, remind a client that uncovered employment claimscan financially damage a firm—especially if several employees areinvolved—and such financial situations can make future operationsdifficult at best. And if possible, have the client'shuman-resources representative present during the sales call, as HRpeople are advocates of EPLI.

As in the case of Lilly Ledbetter, employment law is continuallyevolving. What appears a non-issue today might not be tomorrow.

A final word to any and all prospects for EPLI coverage—considerthe form being purchased. In particular, beware of purchasingsolely on premium. For example, it pays to see if the carrieroffers a helpline for employment issues. This service can beinvaluable in navigating the legal minefield of employmentrelations.

Finally, while a major corporation may in a given instance usedelaying tactics within the court system or may have the resourcesto mask a bad public-relations issue, these options usually aren'tavailable for the midsize- or small-business owner should an EPLIissue strike.

And now back to Lilly Ledbetter.

At age 72, she travels throughout the United States, givingtalks to various groups about her battle with Goodyear at theirexpense. (She cannot afford to travel on her own). In aninteresting twist of events, she continues to make today'semployees ever more aware of their rights under today's employmentlaw.