I'm not following. The decision based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act appears to me to be correct. I'm not sure what exactly it is you are objecting to.
I don't know that I agree with the law or not at this point, but that is irrelevant; which, is the point of this thread.
I'm objecting to the same things that the dissent did. The law provides for 2 years back pay and provides a limited time to bring a claim. However, things like pay disparity or "hostile work place" both occur incrementally. They aren't something that you'd notice at first. So, the time to make a claim shouldn't have begun to run until she learned of the pay disparity.
The decision is awful. If an employer knows that there's no penalty for discrimination then the whole point of Title VII is lost.