Vehar v. Cole National Group Case (Term Paper Sample)

Case Questions
Name
Institution
Vehar v. Cole National Group case
The legal issues, in this case, is that Vehar was discriminated in payment of salaries based on her sex. She goes to court trying to show how gender was used to determine her lower salary. The plaintiff’s suit contends that Vehar was paid less when compared to the payment made to her two male colleagues despite the fact that she did the same job. The court reversed the District Court’s decision and remanded further action on the previous summary judgment making the case go to trial.
In its ruling, the court decided that genuine matters of material fact existed in the case. The Judge observed that as at February 2003, Crosley, Vehar’s colleague had received a demotion to work as a Senior Programmer Analyst alongside Vehar and Leipold and he was to earn $73,733. At the same time, Leipold, also Vehar’s colleague was soon receiving a salary of $78,622 as in 2003. At the same time, the female-Vehar earned $46,460 for the same job as her male comparatives. The Judge noted that even within similar job titles, Vehar was paid less compared to her male colleagues.
The plaintiff sued her employer based on sex discrimination guided by the 1964 Equal Pay Act: VII contained in the Civil Rights Act of Ohio Law. The plaintiff also used reprisal and hostile environment harassment contained in the State Law and Title VII. Judge Griffin maintained that for the employee to create a prima facie case guided by the Equal Pay Act (EPA), the plaintiff had to show that the employer paid different salaries to employees based on gender for similar works whose performance required similar skill, responsibility, and effort. Additionally, the employee had to show that such equal jobs were done within similar working environments. Further, the Judge claimed that such jobs did not have to be identical, but should be substantially similar on effort, skill, working conditions, and responsibility guided by actual work duties and requirements rather than job titles. After the plaintiff was successful in developing a prima facie case, the employer was now faced with the burden of proof.
The employer ought to have been in a position to prove and show that other causes other than sex contributed to the wage difference. Such factors to be cited by the employer would be a merit system, a system that determines salaries based on quality and quantity of production, a seniority system, and any other causes (Walsh, 2012, p.448). The employer cited other factors such as additional work experience. National Group Inc. stated that the male comparatives possessed extra work experience. However, such a factor was not sufficient to avoid trial as the court decided that such difference in experience would not sufficiently justify such large gaps in salaries (Walsh, 2012, p.448).
The employer had a problem of serious contradictions amid their claimed practices and policies, in addition to their actual deeds in the case, and the defense they raised. The employer should have prioritized monitoring the remuneration and selection practices, often reviewing job requirements, titles, and descriptions to ensure they are up to date and accurate. The company should at the first place review hiring decisions, remuneration decisions, performance evaluations, and consistency recommendations. Finally, the employer should not have tolerated abusive and sexist language such as ‘data bitch’ particularly from the supervisors.
NLRB v. Whitesell Corp case
The legal issue was that the NLRB found that Whitesell Corp. (a metal manufacturer) had violated the labor law when Whitesell did not negotiate in good faith with a union. A union represented the employees. The employer bought a manufacturing facility and agreed to abide and adhere to the terms stipulated by the then present Collective Bargaining Agreement. Before the existing agreement had expired, the company engaged in new agreement negotiations. After eight meeting sessions, the employer declared an impasse. Consequently, the employer eventually instigated its final offer while the union went ahead to file prejudiced labor practice charges. The charges were claiming a premature impasse declaration by the employer. The Appeals Court remanded and vacated an injunction against the employer, Whitesell, by ruling that the minimum requirements had not been met for the injunction to be implemented. Additionally, the Appeals Court claimed that the district court had cryptically issued that it presented the supposed unfair labor practices.
The Eighth Circuit declared that considerable evidence supported conclusions that Whitesell had failed in negotiating to a valid impasse by imposing an arbitrary deadline on the bargains. Additionally, the Eighth Circuit maintained that the employer failed to impose a valid impasse by claiming that it planned to present the final offer on the decided date, but only got involved in a few negotiations before it declared an impasse. Whitesell’s claim that all parties were locked over wages was disproven by the element that u...