Is it fair to summarize this case and the new "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" as follows?

Ledbetter filed an EEOC action against Goodyear following her retirement. She alleged unequal pay because of sex discrimination. Goodyear never really argued that discrimination didn't occur. Rather, they argued that Ledbetter had no standing to file a claim because the time limitations for filing had passed.

Initially, both the EEOC and a jury ruled in her favor. A federal appeals court later threw out her claim, limiting her lawsuit to discrimination that may have happened in the six months prior to her initial complaint with the EEOC. A three-judge panel also dismissed the pay discrimination allegations during that 180-day window. The case was then appealed to SCOTUS where in a narrowly divided 5-4 ruling, the high court sided with Goodyear, concluding that Ledbetter had only a federally mandated 180-day window following the initial incident of discriminatory pay in which to make her initial claim.

After the SCOTUS decision eliminated any further legal options, Ledbetter began to lobby Congress and the White House to change the time period which dictated when such claims could be filed. She argued that a plaintiff like herself should have the right to file a complaint to the government within 180 days of their most recent paycheck, as opposed to within 180 days of their first unfair paycheck. Proponents of the legislation argued that the fault in the original enabling legislation was that an employer merely needed to hide unfair pay practices for a few months before being able to continue them, without penalty, forever. They argued that the rule placed an unfair burden on employees, who may not discover discriminatory pay practices until after their right to make a claim had already passed.

Ledbetter and her supporters made little headway with the Bush White House. As the case gained notoriety, it became an issue in the 2008 Presidential campaign. During the 2008 campaign, the proposed Ledbetter Act proved to be a significant point of contention between then-Senator Barack Obama and Republican nominee Senator John McCain. Obama emphasized what he called the plan's benefits to working women, while McCain criticized it as a boon for trial lawyers.

When Obama won the Presidency, Congressional Democrats put a reversal of the high court's ruling near the top of their agenda. The law was the first one passed by the 111th Congress and the first signed by the new President. The law was retroactive and permitted Ledbetter, or other employees with similar circumstances, to re-file her claims with the EEOC, which had approved it initially, many years ago.
-------------------------------------------------
In this case, it appears that the lower court judge and jury were "activist", ruling for Ledbetter in an obvious violation of the then-controlling legislation and federal rules. Both the federal Court of Appeals and SCOTUS ruled purely on the law, even though there were dissenters at the SCOTUS level who agreed with the unfairness of the controlling legislation.

Fair summary?