SP21 HNRS BLAW PAPER

.docx

School

University of Colorado, Boulder *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2301

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by GeneralFreedom99137

Employment Discrimination TO: The Honorable Judges FROM: (BCOR 2301-801 section, 109452670, Cohort B) DATE: April 26, 2021 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ISSUE & CASE HISTORY The primary legal issue in the case is to determine whether or not the US Soccer Federation’s payment practices in regard to pay, travel, and promotion result in a violation of the federal Equal Pay Act. This would be a consequence of discrimination by the USSF through paying the Women’s National team less for substantially similar work to the Men’s National team. The district court of California previously dismissed the plaintiff’s action regarding pay stating that the women did not prove wage discrimination. The appellate court now needs to analyze the decision made by the United States District Court for the Central District of California to determine if the federal Equal Pay Act was properly used in the case. Essentially, the court needs to consider if the Equal Pay Act applies to this matter. The court of this case is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit holds appellate jurisdiction because it is hearing an appeal from a federal district court located within the respective circuit. RULES The legal rule that applies to the issue of this case is the Equal Pay Act. Under this constitutional law, it is illegal for an employer to pay lower wages to women for equal work where the same skill, effort, and responsibility is required. This law covers all forms of payment including salary, travel, and promotion. In this case, the female players are arguing that that the USSF has violated the Equal Pay Act due to consistently receiving less payment in comparison to their male counterparts, even though, their performance has been superior. In disagreement, the defendant argues that the Equal Pay Act doesn’t apply to the case due to contract law. The defendant raises the defense that there was a valid, binding, and enforceable contract in agreement with the plaintiff that provides valid reasoning for the Equal Pay Act to not be applicable to the case. The defendant claims that the contract was agreed upon through collective bargaining and was composed of a different structure than the contract between the MNT and the USSF. Therefore, the difference in the structure between the contracts verifies the separate levels of pay to be legal. ANALYSIS The precedent of this case is that the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the claim proposed by the plaintiff that the WNT was discriminated against based on the Equal Pay Act. The team has appealed the ruling, and as a result, the appellate court will focus on the application and interpretation of the law to review the record of the case and determine whether the trial court committed an error. This precedent is non-binding; however, it is persuasive to the appellate court. While analyzing the decision of the district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit can conclude two different interpretations and applications of the Equal Pay Act. The appellate court can either disagree with the district court by deciding that the Equal Pay Act properly applies to the case or agree that the Equal Pay Act doesn’t cover this case. In disagreement with the district court, the appellate court can make the interpretation that the Equal Pay Act should be properly applied to the case. There is valid

reasoning in support of the plaintiff’s claim that the USSF discriminated against the female players. The WNT contend that the USSF paid them noticeably less than similarly situated players on the MNT, and there is no legitimate defense or reasoning to why they received lower pay. Even though the WNT formed a contract that outlined the structure of pay, there is still a legal obligation to receive equal treatment. It is unfair for the WNT to receive lower pay on the basis that they agreed to a different payment structure. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s allegations go beyond pay and include statements that the defendant subjected the players to discriminatory playing conditions. The allegations encompass a claim of discriminatory working conditions in respect to field surfaces, travel conditions, and support services, which are all protected by the Equal Pay Act. There is supporting evidence that the USSF made the WNT play on surfaces that were significantly worse such as artificial turf more frequently than the MNT. This causes for concern because playing on artificial turf can affect the fundamentals of play and more importantly lead to injuries. More frequently than the MNT, the plaintiffs were scheduled to play their matches on turf. Additionally, the USSF chose to install temporary grass more often for the MNT than for the WNT. The decisions made by the USSF regarding the playing surfaces were not made with equal treatment or player safety in mind. This provokes the reason to believe that there is obvious disparity in the treatment between the USSF and the WNT compared to the USSF and the MNT. Another supporting reason that the plaintiffs were discriminated against by the USSF, is that they had much worse travel conditions relative to the MNT. Even though the WNT played more matches, there is clear evidence that the USSF spent more cumulative money on both airfare and hotels for the MNT than it did for the WNT. The USSF’s explanation for this is weak and implausible. Ultimately, the USSF violated the Equal Pay Act by discriminating against the WNT through providing them with less pay and unequal playing conditions. Alternatively, the appellate court can agree with the United States District Court for the Central District of California that the Equal Pay Act shouldn’t be used in this case. The court could make this decision formed on the argument of contract law and that there is a difference between the structure of the men’s and women’s contracts in which they agreed to. The MNT and the WNT are each represented by a separate union and are compensated under different terms of independent collective bargaining agreements. The men’s contract is structured as a pay to play agreement meaning that the players are not compensated unless they participate in a training camp or make the roster. Under this contract, MNT players don’t receive an annual salary, instead, they receive high bonuses based on the team’s performance in different matches. The negotiations between the USSF and the WNT demonstrate that the WNT rejected the offer to be paid under the same pay to play structure as the MNT. The Women’s National team forfeited high bonuses for other benefits that include a greater base compensation and guarantee of a higher number of contracted players. The Women’s National team opted to reject the structure of pay that they now reference as what they should be paid. This proposes the persuasive argument that the women made an agreement in the form of a contract to receive a different level of pay from the men. Therefore, due to contract law the Equal Pay Act doesn’t apply to the plaintiff’s claims of receiving unequal pay. In response to the plaintiff’s claim that they received unequal playing conditions, the defendant provides valid economical reasoning in support of their decisions. In reference to the WNT playing more matches on turf than the MNT, the defendant argues that it wasn’t a discriminatory decision by the USSF. Instead, the USSF made a simple business decision. Unlike the MNT, the defendant has evidence that they did not anticipate generating enough revenue from the matches to justify the cost of installing temporary grass for the WNT. With regards to the plaintiff’s travel conditions, the defendant raises the defense that decisions were made based on the concern of the MNT’s performance in important matches. The USSF believed that in order for the MNT to compete and gain a competitive edge over their opponents they needed additional care going into their matches. The USSF articulates legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for providing the MNT with differentiated pay and treatment, proving a persuasive argument to why the Equal Pay Act doesn’t apply to this case.

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