Reference no: EM133508333

Discussion Post: Gender Discrimination and Pay Equity

A county council member of a large county is made aware that many U.S. military members in its county, both men and women veterans, stay in the local area after their military obligation and begin their "civilian" careers, especially in law enforcement, fire protection, county finance, county judicial, and other state funded positions, where they can transfer their military service to the state pension fund, with an average of four years toward a state retirement. The council member is up for reelection and wants to meet with the nearby military base "liaison officers" to learn and promote the County's high employment rate of departing military members, in particular positions that can accelerate their state careers and retirement pensions. The council member even brings former military members, now serving in each of the above county positions, to various military hiring fairs, to speak of their military service, their transition to state service and how their military service "jump started" their state careers. During some of the hiring fairs, it was asked of the now state employees, what staring salaries would the military members enter into their state positions. Even though many of the uniformed state employees, [i.e., police and fire] once had the same "stripes" on their uniform sleeves, when the male employees stated their starting salaries, it came as a "shock" to the female employees.

Though they did not say anything at the hiring fairs, upon their return to their district buildings, they brought it up with all their female colleagues. They even had a meeting with their district leadership, and it was confirmed that all female "uniformed" employees, with the same experience and military rank of their male counterparts, were hired at a rate of 20% less than their male "uniformed" colleagues. Further research also showed the state non-uniformed female finance and judicial employees were also "hired on" at a 20% reduction in pay than their male counterparts. During the County Councilman's various "meet and greets" for his re-election campaign, this pay disparity was brought to his attention, of which he "swore he would get to the bottom of this travesty." When the local papers found out, they began their investigations and found out the county council, all males, including the specific council member, had voted for such hiring practices, to take the savings in the female starting salaries and use it for their pay raises. This had been going on for five years, the time of their council periods of office. Once the papers reported their investigations, the County council members were all placed on paid administrative leave, "pending the results of the investigation."

You are the County Attorney, and you must gather all the facts and investigative materials, to include many sworn testimonies, suspect hiring documents, other materials to put a case together. As County Attorney, you know the above facts should lead you to probable violations of Title VII Civil Rights Act, but specifically, you are sure.

Question A. Identify possible Title VII violations by the alleged council member's actions, or their inactions. What would these actions or inactions allegedly prove?

Question B. What, if any, allegations of Title VII violations should be brought against the Council members?

Question C. What should the County Attorney consider when victim remedies are discussed?

Question D. What should the County change in its hiring practices once this breaking incident has been resolved?