The Case Study Shows An Argument Of Two Different Coaches ✓ Solved

The case study gives us an argument of two different coaches

The case study gives us an argument of two different coaches who are working on diverse teams. Since the coaches have the same level of experience, workload, and fundraising affairs, the decision made shows that the female coach is being paid less than the male coach. It is clear proof that there is discrimination in the payment system of the two coaches.

The history of payment for various coaches, especially in contrast with female and male coaches, has shown some conflict. The conflict arises between the holistic value of the coach and economy programs which are being discussed. Though the two have the same level of experience, there are disputes seen in the case study that favors the male being paid more than the female, and yet they are serving as the head coach of the two teams. In alleging for this case, the decision made has a lawsuit instituted by the female coach as it is alleging that they are being paid less than their male counterparts. It violates the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA), Title IX, and Title VII. Therefore, the case study will evaluate coaching paid issues discussed in three federal statutes, each having its pros and cons. In our case, the female coach is the victim of wage discrimination and is not granted the legal relief to complain about wage and level with the male counterparts.

However, it will discuss some of the most instructive cases with pros and cons of the battle against salary discrimination in coaching.

Pro and Cons in Gender Coaching

The history of female and male coaching wage salaries has taken some interesting turns over the years, as seen in the case. One of the pros is that both coaches receive the same benefit in terms of pay issues, although their payment is not equal. It creates a wide range of working close to the players and the coach to perfect the match. Under the rule of law, it is clear that any payment related to female coaches must be put into Title IX, resulting in various women coaches.

It is an issue that has minimized the battle of discrimination and showed that women have the potential and the same skills of being a coach of a confident team with the assistant coach. Though they are coaching the same gender of teams, the male counterparts are more considered, which shows a double interest in security. One of the cons that one can obtain from this case is that the female coach faces inertial differences in payment due to gender. There are some erroneous perceptions and unconscious discrimination in the payment though having the same experience and workload. With the instituted lawsuits, the female coach was paid less than the male, which often showed that male coaches have more market value than the female coaches.

Applicability of Title IX

Title IX is an amendment Act which expresses that no person based on sex shall be excluded or denied benefits. It should be subject to discrimination, which has been seen in the wage difference between the two coaches. Applicability of this Act has provided a cornerstone for female coach payment equally with the male though it is not adhered to in our case. It is being used in this case based on the consideration of various facts. Some of these are the different coaches' experiences, the number of those who participate per each coach, and the level of competition that must abide by Title IX to gather general information.

Title IX has been applicable in our case since it prohibits discrimination, which occurs in coaches based on wage differences. However, it prohibits the compensation practices, resulting in a denial of equal payment, especially to the participants involved. In this case, it has to be absorbed and evaluated to obtain a change in payment between the two genders. It is valuable in our case as it is always against gender discrimination, more so in payment, which is not shown in EPA and Title VII.

Overall, the Amendment Act has shown some financial assistance that might be sufficient for use and solve wage discrimination amongst the involved coaches.

Applicability of Title VII in the Case

Title VII is applicable in our case since it has considered two avenues for attacking both the female and male coaches' pay inequity. Although it prohibits discrimination in sex, most of its practices are limited based on rates of pay. In our case, Title VII was shown when there was intentional discrimination against the gender, resulting in adverse impacts on the female coach through having the same skills and responsibilities for the team. The defendant has proved for the significant age difference, which must abide by the Act to show neutral policy.

Some of the limitations that have been made not to be effective in the case are that it only applies to the coach who has fewer participants. The gender coverage of the two coaches is not being exalted as effective as the Act does not hibernate on racial discrimination of wage differences. Overall, it has to work closely with the EPA to show neutrality in the policy of wage differences.

Applicability of Equal Payment Act (EPA) Protection for Pat

The EPA requires that there should be no sex discrimination in any pay for work done and if performance needs the same skills, responsibility, and workload and if the coaching is performed in the same working environment. The number of people that one is coaching does matter in EPA protection when the head coach has the same skills, workload, and fundraising responsibility as in the case; Pat was highly discriminated against by being paid less amount of money than Chris.

The prediction of EPA in gender-based wage discrimination, which has occurred in our case, makes the judgment extremely difficult for Pat to obtain the exact results and reasons in payment. The EPA has been deployed in this case to perceive the endemic problem of discrimination. Since women are mostly segregated in this job opportunity, especially in America, the EPA has not wholly given gender-based violence changes though having the same credential skills.

Conclusion

For effective sharing of wages between the two coaches in neutrality and discrimination matters, changes must prevail inapplicability of the three Acts, which has protected Pat. The three have to work closely to solve the coaches' issue of compensation and gender discrimination since they have the same skills and workload. Again, the salary is not a vacuum for interest of change by the coach. There is a need to have some indication that proves that it is worth of the workload and quality. Therefore, the battle, which is in the case of payment in coaching, is in infancy. In the future predictable direction has to be given for equal wage sharing since the working environment and responsibilities align.

References

• Bailey, R. (2018). Sport, physical education, and educational worth. Educational Review, 70(1), 51-66.
• Claussen, C.L. (1995). Title IX and employment discrimination in coaching athletics.
• Dougherty, N.J., Auxter, D., Goldberger, A.S., & Heinzmann, G.S. (1994). Sport, physical activity, and the law. Human Kinetics Publishers.
• Sawyer, T.H. (1994). Sport, Physical Activity, and the Law. Journal of Athletic Training, 29(1), 85.
• Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964.