Analyze The Case And Opinion In Riser V QEP Energy

Analyze The Case And Opinion In The Case Ofriser V Qep Energy 777 F

Analyze the case and opinion in the case of Riser v. QEP Energy, 777 F.3d 457 (10th Cir. 2015) located in your textbook on pp. 451–454. Write a case study review of Judge Kelly’s opinion that answers the questions below. Support your review with analysis and evidence from the unit reading and outside sources. What are the legal issues presented in this case? Did the plaintiff establish a valid prima facie case of pay discrimination? Was there a basis for equal work? On what factors did the appeals court base its decision? Why is the other-than-sex factor that is presented by the employer insufficient to avoid a trial? What should the employer have done differently? Your paper should be a minimum of two pages, not including the title and reference pages. You are required to use a minimum of three sources, one of which may be your textbook as reference material for your case study. Adhere to APA Style when constructing this assignment, including in-text citations and references for all sources that are used. Please note that no abstract is needed. This Case Study Example provided by the CSU Writing Center shows this type of formatting.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Riser v. QEP Energy, 777 F.3d 457 (10th Cir. 2015), addresses critical issues of pay discrimination and the legal standards required for establishing employment discrimination claims under the framework of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Judge Kelly’s opinion systematically evaluates whether the plaintiff, Riser, presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on gender, explores the validity of the employer’s defenses, including other-than-sex factors, and assesses whether the employer took appropriate actions to prevent discrimination.

The fundamental legal issues in this case revolve around the question of whether Riser’s lower compensation compared to her male counterparts constituted unlawful sex discrimination. Specifically, the case examines whether Riser can establish a prima facie case of discrimination, whether the jobs held by the plaintiff and her comparators are substantially equal for purposes of establishing equal pay claims, and whether the employer’s other-than-sex explanations suffice to justify the pay disparity.

In analyzing whether the plaintiff established a valid prima facie case, the court applies the McDonnell Douglas framework, which requires the plaintiff to show that she belongs to a protected class, was qualified for her position, suffered an adverse employment decision—here, pay disparity—and was replaced by someone outside the protected class or in circumstances sufficiently similar. Riser demonstrated that she was employed in a comparable role and earned less than her male colleagues performing similar work, fulfilling the initial burden.

Regarding the basis for equal work, the court considers whether the job responsibilities, skills, effort, and working conditions of Riser’s position and those of her male counterparts are comparable. Although the employer argued differences in certain skills or performance, Kelly’s opinion emphasized that the core job functions were substantively similar, supporting the equal work claim.

The appeals court predominantly focused on whether the employer’s other-than-sex factors — including higher productivity or different work assignments — could legitimately justify the pay disparity. Kelly concluded that these factors were insufficient to avoid summary judgment because they were either not documented adequately or did not meet the employer’s burden to establish a non-discriminatory explanation. The court held that dismissing a pay disparity based solely on subjective factors without substantial evidence was inappropriate, compelling further pursuit of the case.

In assessing employer conduct, the court noted that failure to take proactive steps to prevent gender discrimination or to thoroughly investigate disparities suggests negligence or a discriminatory bias. The employer should have implemented clearer policies for pay equity, conducted transparent pay audits, and documented performance evaluations to substantiate pay decisions adequately.

In conclusion, Judge Kelly’s opinion illustrates the importance of clear, objective criteria in compensation decisions and underscores that mere assertions of other-than-sex factors are insufficient if not thoroughly substantiated. Employers must proactively demonstrate their non-discriminatory motives to successfully defend against claims of illegal pay discrimination, highlighting the ongoing need for vigilant employment practices and equitable pay policies.

References

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17.
• McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
• Riser v. QEP Energy, 777 F.3d 457 (10th Cir. 2015).
• Levinson, R. (2010). Employment discrimination law. Harvard University Press.
• Smith, J. (2018). Equal pay and gender discrimination in the workplace. Journal of Employment Law, 45(2), 123-139.
• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2020). Protecting Against Pay Discrimination. EEOC Publications.
• Bell, M. P. (2016). Diversity in organizations: Concepts and practices. Routledge.
• Feldblum, P. J., & Lipnic, V. (2016). Report of the EEOC Task Force on the Evolving Nature of Discrimination. EEOC.
• Blumrosen, A. (2012). The Equality Laws and mechanisms for enforcing equal pay. Yale Law Journal, 121(4), 930-962.