Essay Sample on Equal Pay Act: Establishing Prima Facie Pay Discrimination

Introduction

The legal issues in the case are that if an employee feels that she is being discriminated against on her pay because of her sex, she must establish a prima facie case of pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act (Kelly et al., 2015). To create pay discrimination for prima facie, under the EPA, a plaintiff must depict that she was performing a substantially equal work to those of male employees in respect to the responsibilities, efforts, supervision, duties, and skills and there were similar work conditions (Kelly et al., 2015). Also, when she seeks to use circumstantial evidence to depict intents of discrimination, the burden-shifting framework will apply, such that if the plaintiff succeeds, the burden will shift to the defendant for the articulation of a non-discriminatory legitimate reason for its action.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

On the contrary, if the defendant does so, the burden will be shifted to the plaintiff to depict that their protected characteristic was a specific determinative factor in the employment decision of the defendant or that the explanation of the defendant was merely pre-textual (Kelly et al., 2015). Additionally, it is legal that once a prima facie discrimination case has been established by a plaintiff under the EPA, the pay disparity must be shown by the defendant, who is justified by one of the following four permissible reasons. A differential based on another factor apart from sex, a system that measures income by quality or quantity of production, a merit system, or a seniority system (Kelly et al., 2015).

The Decision of the Court

The court dismissed the discriminatory discharge claims of Ms. Riser because she never created a prima facie discrimination case and that even if she established, the company in which she was employed had already supplied a non-discriminatory legitimate reason for her discharge that she was not pre-textual (Kelly et al., 2015).

The Basis for the Court's Conclusion

The basis for the court's conclusion is that work is substantially equal for the EPA purposes if it needs the same responsibility, effort, and skill. Mr. Chinn's work was equal to that of Ms. Riser as his fleet administration duties were directly carved out of the functions of Ms. Riser (Kelly et al., 2015). All the QEP fleet administration duties were performed by Ms. Riser, then Mr. Chinn was employed and took on the responsibilities. Also, Mr. Bryant's job was equal to that of Ms. Riser as he managed projects of construction at the field offices of QEP, just like Ms. Riser. He took over the construction projects management in Pinedale, and North Dakota, which Ms. Riser had been managing before her job was terminated (Kelly et al., 2015).

Factors Other than Sex Cited by the Employer

QEP cited that an employee's former salary can be considered in depicting whether the disparity of pay is based on a factor other than sex. For instance, Mr. Bryant was being paid highly in his former company and, therefore, rejected the $62500, which forced QEP to pay him $66000 to be hired in the company (Kelly et al., 2015). QEP also stated that the pay difference between Mr. Chinn and Ms. Riser was based on the company's bonafide, gender-neutral pay system of classification, which was based on data compensation in the industry. QEP maintained its pay differential to Mr. Chinn as it wanted to pay him a similar amount he was receiving at his previous job (Kelly et al., 2015).

Why the Factors Were Not Sufficient to Avoid a Trial

The factors were not sufficient because the decision of an organization to pay a specific elevated salary to an applicant after they reject a lower offer might constitute a factor other than sex. However, the case is only for $3500 income per year, which was very far between the pay disparity between Mr. Bryant and Ms. Riser of $18,618 (Kelly et al., 2015). Also, neither QEP nor Ms. Riser established the prima facie case, and therefore, they could not avoid the trial.

Case Decision

I do not agree with the decision for the case as Ms. Riser was maltreated by QEP. She was denied salary increment as well as a promotion due to her gender, and instead, males were employed to take her position even before she was fired. The skills, efforts, and responsibilities were all the same in the three employees, and as such, because Ms. Riser was more experienced, she would have been given a higher rank and salary than Mr. Bryant and Mr. Chinn (Hodges, 2018). Also, during her stay at QEP, Ms. Riser's intentions were always for the success of the company as she wanted to implement new positions and tasks while training Mr. Chinn. However, Mr. Chinn reported to QEP her thoughts, and immediately, the company implemented the ideas before Ms. Riser did (Zimmer & Sullivan, 2017).

The company is also gender-discriminative as only males are employed and its fights to fire females in every possible way. Ms. Riser was fired without given notice as his job termination was abrupt. She never received any verbal reprimand, probation, suspension, written warning, or any other form of discipline. The depicted implies the unfair actions of the company, which the court could have considered before waiving the case. Moreover, with the depicted, I would say that both QEP and the court are gender-biased as they never considered any complaints of Ms. Riser nor her accomplishments in the company (Slinn, 2018).

What Employer Could Have Done Differently Regarding Compensation Practices

Instead of terminating Ms. Riser's job, QEP would have given her a different job position will a little salary increment to appreciate the work that she has been doing to the company as the only female employee. Also, the company would have introduced incentives for quality work done by employees annually to ensure that some rewarded for effective training of other new employees (Slinn, 2018). The company would have also set aside a partial payment increment for Ms. Riser regarding her ideas and knowledge that she wanted to implement before Mr. Chinn stole to the company to implement before Ms. Riser.

Or, they would have promoted her to be the manager of her specific implementations as she knew best how they operated due to her experience (Zimmer & Sullivan, 2017). Additionally, as Mr. Chinn was hired, he would have been offered a much lower salary than Ms. Riser as he was being trained by Ms. Riser, and thus, she was in a top position. The action would have made Ms. Riser feel more appreciated, even if Mr. Bryant was employed. The number of tasks for Ms. Riser would have also been decreased for her to specialize in a specific field to make the company more efficient and effective as she would have been working on the specified task full time (Zimmer & Sullivan, 2017).

References

Hodges, A. C. (2018). Principles of Employment Law. Law Faculty Publications. Retrieved from https://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications/1433/

elly, J., Lucero, J., & Hartz, J. (2015). Opinion by Circuit Judge Kelly. Riser v. QEP Energy. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1690526.html

Slinn, S. (2018). Labor and Employment Law: Cases, Materials, and Commentary. Irwin Law. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/faculty_books/364/

Zimmer, M. J., & Sullivan, C. A. (2017). Cases and Materials on Employment Discrimination. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. ISBN: 978-1-4548-9219-9