CASE STUDY

%19

%12

%10

%2

SafeAssign Originality Report CSU SafeAssign Plagiarism Check Tool • SafeAssign Originality Report Generator I

%43Total Score: High riskPanesia Thomas Kitchen Submission UUID: 83188a09-be6a-3c4a-38ba-8804706ec7a6

Total Number of Reports

1 Highest Match

43 % CaseAnalysis.docx

Average Match

43 % Submitted on

03/19/20 10:17 AM EDT

Average Word Count

821 Highest: CaseAnalysis.docx

%43Attachment 1

Institutional database (5)

Student paper Student paper Student paper

Student paper Student paper

Global database (4)

Student paper Student paper Student paper

Student paper

Internet (1)

adenverlawyer

Scholarly journals & publications (1)

ProQuest document

Top sources (3)

Excluded sources (0)

View Originality Report - Old Design

Word Count: 821 CaseAnalysis.docx

3 9 4

2 6

5 1 10

8

7

11

7 adenverlawyer 5 Student paper 3 Student paper

Source Matches (15)

Student paper 95%

Student paper 95%

Student paper 65%

Student paper 88%

Case of Riser v. QEP Energy Panesia Kitchen Columbia Southern University

Case of Riser v. QEP Energy

The legal issues in this case are first discrimination of the plaintiff, Kathy Risper by the defendant QEP Energy Company on the basis of gender and age which is

in violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and the also the age discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EPA normally prohibits wage discrimination between

employees on the basis of sex, for equal work on jobs, the performance requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility which are performed under similar working conditions (Tufarolo, 2016). The plaintiff established a valid prima facie, she was able to demonstrate the ability to perform work which was substantially equal to

that of the male employees considering the skills, duties, supervision, effort and responsibilities of the jobs. She was involved in managing a fleet of over two hundred vehicles, facility management and managing construction projects. According to Tufarolo, (2016) the defendant dint have any complaint on the execution of duties by the plaintiff. Furthermore, on the evaluations done on Ms Risper for the year 2010, by Mr Bench, she had exceeded her expectations. While working at QEP, the plaintiff also never received any disciplinary issues nor warnings, suspensions or probation. It is also viewed that the conditions where the work was performed were basically the same since Ms Risper’s job description was used to come up with Mathew Chinn’s job description (Yusko et al., 2017). The basis of equal work is based on Mr Chinn's fleet administration duties. Tufarolo, (2016) suggests that Mr Chinn’s duties were a replica of Ms Riser's duties. Ms Riser performed all of the fleet

administration duties after Mr Chinn was hired and took on the responsibilities. Ms Riser also discussed the duties with Mr Bench to prepare Mr Chinn's job description and trained him to perform the same duties then finally she was termination. As Mr Bench explained, there were no tasks on Mr Chinn's job

description that Ms Riser was not previously responsible for performing. The appeal court dismissed Ms Riser's discriminatory discharge based on the grounds that she had not established a prima facie case, and that even if she had, QEP had supplied a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the discharge that Mr Riser did not show to be pretextual (Tufarolo, 2016). Other-than-sex Factor Insufficient to Avoid a Trial

Ms Riser was unable to show that she occupies a job similar to that of higher paid male. It was also considered that an individual's former salary can be

considered in determining whether pay disparity is based on a factor other than sex. QEP had articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the pay disparity between Ms Riser and Mr Chinn and Mr Bryanta and its pay classification system. Due to this the burden of production shifted to Ms Riser to show that company compensation or that gender or age was a determining factor in QEP's decision to pay her less money. This can be reflected by such weaknesses, inconsistencies,

incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence and hence suggest that the employer did not act for the asserted non-discriminatory reasons (Tufarolo, 2016). What The Employer Needed to Do Differently

The employer would have given Ms Riser a well elaborated job description and ensure fairness at work. This would have included getting her views on the job and salary. According to Malhotra et al, (2018) everyone should be treated fairly at work and work-related decisions. The employee should make sure that their company’s policies don't inadvertently put certain groups at a disadvantage. They also should actively promote equality and inclusion, ensuring people are free to focus on what matters most to the company. Diversity and equal treatment in the workplace are vital to a healthy, growing company and even generating its profits. Employing people of all genders and races can make an organization stronger. It's was also important for them to remember they would have been held accountable for perpetrating discriminatory and this will affect their reputation and thus take corrective measures (Yusko et al., 2017). References

Malhotra, L., & Sing, J. (2018). Employees perception towards talent management of organization: A study of gender equality at workplace. International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering, 8(7), 411-419. Tufarolo, M. A. (2016). You Haven't Come a Long Way, Baby: The Courts' Inability to Eliminate the Gender

Gap Fifty-Two Years After the Passage of the Equal Pay Act. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 24(2), 5. Yusko, K. P., Bellenger, B. L., Larson, E. C., Hanges, P. J., & Aiken, J. R. (2017). Legal and fairness considerations in employee selection. Pulakos, J. Passmore & C. Semedo (Eds.), The Wiley

Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention, 422-441.

1

1

2

3

4

5

5

2

6 1

7

8 9

10 11

1

Student paper

Case of Riser v.

Original source

In the case of Riser V

1

Student paper

Case of Riser v.

Original source

In the case of Riser V

2

Student paper

The legal issues in this case are first discrimination of the plaintiff, Kathy Risper by the defendant QEP Energy Company on the basis of gender and age which is in violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and the also the age discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Original source

QEP Energy case presented the violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

3

Student paper

The EPA normally prohibits wage discrimination between employees on the basis of sex, for equal work on jobs, the performance requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility which are performed under similar working conditions (Tufarolo, 2016).

Original source

The EPA prohibits wage discrimination between employees on the basis of sex for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions (Walsh, n.d.)

Student paper 74%

Student paper 88%

Student paper 90%

Student paper 85%

Student paper 65%

Student paper 87%

adenverlawyer 70%

Student paper 100%

Student paper 100%

Student paper 100%

ProQuest document 88%

4

Student paper

The plaintiff established a valid prima facie, she was able to demonstrate the ability to perform work which was substantially equal to that of the male employees considering the skills, duties, supervision, effort and responsibilities of the jobs.

Original source

To establish a prima facie case of Riser must prove (1)she was performing work which was substantially equal to that of the male employees considering the skills, duties, supervision, effort and responsibilities of the jobs

5

Student paper

Ms Riser performed all of the fleet administration duties after Mr Chinn was hired and took on the responsibilities.

Original source

Ms Riser performed all of the fleet administration duties for QEP until Mr Chinn was hired and took on these responsibilities

5

Student paper

As Mr Bench explained, there were no tasks on Mr Chinn's job description that Ms Riser was not previously responsible for performing.

Original source

As Ms Riser’s direct supervisor, Mr Bench, explained, there were no tasks on Mr Chinn’s job description that Ms Riser was not previously responsible for performing

2

Student paper

Other-than-sex Factor Insufficient to Avoid a Trial

Original source

Other-than-sex Factors Insufficient to Avoid a Trial

6

Student paper

Ms Riser was unable to show that she occupies a job similar to that of higher paid male.

Original source

Ms Riser had to show she occupies a job similar to that of higher paid males and show she was paid less than similarly situated younger employees

1

Student paper

It was also considered that an individual's former salary can be considered in determining whether pay disparity is based on a factor other than sex.

Original source

QEP is correct that an individual’s former salary can be considered in determining whether pay disparity is based on a factor other than sex

7

Student paper

This can be reflected by such weaknesses, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence and hence suggest that the employer did not act for the asserted non-discriminatory reasons (Tufarolo, 2016).

Original source

Pretext may be established directly by showing that the employer “was more likely than not motivated by a discriminatory reason,” or indirectly by presenting evidence that the “employer’s explanation is not credible.” A plaintiff demonstrates pretext by producing evidence of such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence and hence infer that the employer did not act for the asserted non-discriminatory reasons

8

Student paper

You Haven't Come a Long Way, Baby:

Original source

You Haven’t Come a Long Way, Baby

9

Student paper

The Courts' Inability to Eliminate the Gender Gap Fifty-Two Years After the Passage of the Equal Pay Act. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 24(2), 5.

Original source

The Courts' Inability to Eliminate the Gender Gap Fifty-Two Years After the Passage of the Equal Pay Act American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 24(2), 5

10

Student paper

Legal and fairness considerations in employee selection.

Original source

Legal and fairness considerations in employee selection

11

Student paper

Semedo (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention, 422-441.

Original source

Semedo (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention (pp