The legal issues presented in the case of Riser v. QEP Energy are that the company discriminated against the plaintiff based on gender and age which violated the equal pay act, the title of the Civil Rights Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment act. The legal issue was on discrimination of the plaintiff based on the pay since she was accorded a lower pay than her successor and the employee who was hired to conduct fleet administration which was previously her duty in the organization.
The plaintiff did not establish a valid Prima facie case of pay discrimination since she lacked adequate to prove that establish that she conducted equal responsibilities as a male employee but was afforded a lower pay. Due to the diversification of MS. Riser’s duties and responsibilities in the organization gave her a disadvantage since the prima facie case of pay discrimination requires valid evidence that the plaintiff exhibited equal skills, effort, and responsibilities which could not be established in this case. The prima facie case of pay discrimination required the plaintiff to provide valid evidence that her job requirements were conducted under the same condition as those of the male employees, prove that the male employees performing similar job activities were paid a higher wage rate, and provide a proper justification that the company performed pay discrimination in this condition. MS. Riser could not justify her claim for pay discrimination since this law did not take into consideration that she performed the role of fleet administration and other responsibilities at the same time. However, the plaintiff provided a good argument that she had complained several times to the management to change her title and salary since she was paid based on the work performed by administrative assistants with no inclusion of her responsibilities in fleet administration which was a good basis for pay discrimination in the organization. (“FindLaw’s the United States Tenth Circuit case and opinions.”, 2015)
There was a basis for equal work only between MS. Riser and Mr. Bryant who was given her job after her termination by the company. However, there was no other basis for equal work as MS. Riser was accorded more responsibilities and duties than Mr. Chinn and Mr. Bryant since she was in charge of performing both their duties in the organization at a lower pay rate than the two were awarded by the organization. The appeal court based its decision on the fact that she had not established a prima facie case during her opening remarks in the court. According to the court of appeal MS. Riser did not provide a strong argument to satisfy her prima facie case since her main argument was that the organization used pretextual reasons to fire her from the organization. The other factor that the court of appeal based it decides that the QEP organization had provided the court of law with substantial evidence that supported their claim that their reasons for firing her were non-discriminatory that were not pretextual. The court of appeal also based their decision on the fact that the arguments made by MS. Riser had not been raised during the opening speech hence they were invalid and did not impact the court’s decision.
The employer provided an argument that MS. Riser had failed in her duties in North Dakota and had received various complaints concerning the MS. Riser’s work ethic which considering the performance assessment proved to be untrue. The QEP company also presented that the MS. Riser’s job performance had been power over the recent year. These factors were insufficient to avoid the trial since the organization could not provide valid evidence to prove this and due to the availability of evidence from a job assessment on MS. Riser that showed that she had exceeded all of her expectations. These arguments we also insufficient due to the fact there had been no single complaint, suspension, and warning letter on MS. Riser. The employer should have retained MS. Riser since she had been in the company for years and increased her pay since she was responsible for more duties than what were stated under her role and title.
References
FindLaw’s United States Tenth Circuit case and opinions. (2015). Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1690526.html.
