Background
Today I am presenting you the case between Sophie vs Millicent’s. My name is Marshall
Hornsby, and I am the head of the legal department for Millicent’s. Millicent’s is a high-end
clothing manufacturer and department store in New York and we pride ourselves in our ability to
outperform competitors. As a global company on the New York Stock Exchange with over
40,000 employees, we have been awarded for our professionalism and character, which is
something we take very seriously. Due to strict company policy, Millicent’s does not tolerate any
sort of harassment within the company. We also recognize all Federal laws that pertain to equal
employment since we are an equal opportunity employer, including Title VII of The Civil Rights
Act of 1964, that law that is relevant to this case. We are here to acknowledge the claims that
Sophie is making against our company. Sophie has been an employee in our marketing
department for the past year and she has never shown signs of resentment towards the company
or her manager. After six months, she requested we shorten her work week by one day and
adding hours to make it up. However; Alphonso was forced to undo her request and require her
to return to a normal work week to accommodate our meeting schedules. Alfonso, our manager
that hired Sophie, also hired Ralphi at the same time for the position, marketing manager. After
reviewing our company compensation guidelines, we concluded that since Ralphi met our
educational requirements for the job whereas Sophie did not, Ralphi would earn a salary of
twenty five percent higher than Sophie. Once she discovered this after the annual review, Sophie
felt that she was not only being discriminated against but also being punished by Alphonso for
confronting him about it. While we understand her concern, we do operate our business in the
most professional way possible. We do not make decisions without thinking of our employees’
and customers’ best interest. Requiring Sophie to work a normal work schedule and paying
another employee, who is more qualified for the position, a higher salary is the way we must run
our business. Unfortunately for Sophie, neither of those policies worked in her favor.
Jurisdiction
If this mediation does not come to a successful agreement, the case will go to Federal
court. Under Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are prohibited from
discriminating against their employees based on race, gender, etc. Since Sophie is claiming
unequal pay and retaliation, a Federal court will have jurisdiction due to the violation of a
Federal law. Also, a salary difference between Raphi and Sophie exceeding $75,000 would grant
a Federal court jurisdiction.
GIRAC
Goal- To reach a conclusion that will help Sophie understand Millicent’s policies and
satisfy both parties without going to Federal court.
Issue- Sophie believes that she was received unequal pay and was then forced to change
her schedule request due her confronting the manager about the issue.
Rule- Unequal pay is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
Sophie is alleging against Millicent’s.
Analysis- Millicent’s followed company and regulatory policies when determining
schedule and pay. Based on the qualifications of each employee and Millicent’s company
compensation guidelines, one candidate deserved a higher salary than the other.
Requiring Sophie to work certain days due to meeting schedules is something Millicent’s
expects from its employees.
Conclusion- Upon admiring Sophie’s claims and determining the best outcome for both
parties, Millicent’s is prepared to offer her two solutions. If she still believes in our
company and wants to stay with us, we will offer a transfer to another department and a
pay increase to match that of what she feels she was cheated out of. If Sophie decides she
no longer wants to stay with Millicent’s, we will offer a settlement claim that matches her
last year’s salary in return for a confidentiality agreement after leaving the company.
Although Millicent’s operated within legal and moral guidelines, we understand Sophie’s
concerns and are willing to cooperate to settle the misunderstanding.
