MHR 6401 UNIT V

docx

School

Columbia Southern University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MHR 6401

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by nikitawallacecsu

Running head: RISER v. QEP ENERGY 1 Riser v. QEP Energy 87ihafpaofjmalk iaufhalkfm Columbia Southern University Professor John kajflajfoa

RISER v. QEP ENERGY 2 Riser V. QEP Energy In the case Riser v. QEP Energy, Kathy Riser former employee of Questar Exploration and Production Company (Questar) in 1997. Kathy initiated a lawsuit against her former employer QEP, after being terminated from her job for alleged unsatisfactory performance. Kathy a fifty year old female Administrative Services Representative II, claimed that her former employer had discriminated against her based off her age. Kathy believed that her employer had violated her rights solely on the basis of her gender and age. Her findings of facts were supported by the two men who took over her position within the company while receiving a higher pay rate after she terminated from QEP because of her performance rating on the North Dakota project. As noted QEP never provided any warning, corrective action, performance improvement plan or probation prior to termination of Ms. Riser. Legal Issues Presented in This Case Ms. Riser, began working for QEP in 1997, were she successfully performed her duties and responsibilities receiving a promotion to Administrative Services Representative II in 2003. According Ms. Risers’ case in 2015, as part of her duties and responsibilities were managing a fleet vehicles, around 250 to be exact. Kathy, was a self-starter who essentially took on several additional duties outside of her normal scope. She, oversaw the fleet management services in addition to the construction projects in several states, as the sole employee responsible for aforementioned additional duties. QEP made the decision to create an additional position, because of the amount of work being completed by Kathy, QEP classified Ms. Riser position as a Grade 5 on their tier with a measurable value of $47,382 dollars a year. In June 2011, QEP initiated a new position within the organization prompting the hiring of Mr. Chinn, as a new employee Mr. Chinn required some training. Shortly after being on boarded Riser was directed to

RISER v. QEP ENERGY 3 train Mr. Chinn until September 2011. Soon after Riser was terminated without notification as to why. Immediately after her termination QEP instigated another new hire, both Mr. Chinn and Mr. Bryant, where both classified at a paygrade of seven equating to $66,000 a year in salary (Walsh, 2019, p.452). During her tenure at QEP, Riser was a model employee only to receive one pay raise during that time. Never receiving any disciplinary actions or failed evaluations always obtaining a “meets expectations” evaluation. As a reward for her exceptional work ethics and attention to detail performance. QEP, took on two new employees and required Riser to train them both. According to the Equal Pay Act (EPA), this prohibits wage discrimination based off gender; as stated by the Department of Labor (DOL), any and all work must be substantially equal in the overall duties regardless of their titles. Meaning that majority of the required duties and responsibilities must align with one another. During the primary hearing the courts sided with QEP siting the two new employee’s job descriptions did not align with Risers making their duties totally different from Kathy’s. When considering the pay scale, one must remember that pay variances are based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, all the aforementioned factors outside of sex. QEP, argued that the pay variances was based off factors other than sex, due to the pay scale being gender neutral. According to the findings of fact during the initial trial, QEP alleged chargers where dropped. Kathy, wasn’t satisfied and decided to appeal her claim, winning her appeal as the courts reversed the summary of judgement.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

RISER v. QEP ENERGY 4 Conclusion If QEP, had performed their due diligence by completing a compensation analysis of the positions when the concerns where brought up by Ms. Riser, they would have realized she rated additional monies as she was an exceptional employee. By using a whole person concept they would have alos realized her employee history was above approach. Finally, with proper refresher, reinforcement and sustainment training on EEOC regulations they could educated their managers. Avoiding any negative press, or issues within the organization.

RISER v. QEP ENERGY 5 References Equal Pay for Equal Work. (n.d.). Retrieved from U.S. Department Of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/internal/policies/equal- pay-for-equal-work Facts About Equal Pay and Compensation Discrimination. (1997, January 15). Retrieved from U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/facts- about-equal-pay-and-compensation-discrimination Walsh, D. J. (2019). Employment Law for Human Resource Practice (6th ed.). Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781337670685/cfi/4!/4/4@0.00:0.00

MHR 6401 UNIT V

Related Documents