Riser began working for Questar in 1997 at aged 50 years old, and was promoted to the position of Administrative Services Representative II in 2003. While she was at Questar, She managed a fleet of over 250 vehicles, performed various facilities management duties, and managed construction projects in several states. At the time, she was the only Questar employee performing fleet management and facilities management duties. When the QEP unit she was working for was spun-off, it developed a pay classification system for employees based on industry compensation data. The system consisted of 15 different grades, and Riser’s position was designated as a Grade 5. That classification was based on QEP’s knowledge of the tasks that administrative assistants typically perform, not on Ms. Riser’s actual job responsibilities, which were not considered. Twice Riser asked that her title and salary be changed, but she received no response. In part because Riser had logged 541 hours of overtime in the prior fourteen months performing both fleet administration and facilities management duties, QEP created a new fleet administrator position, which it classified as Grade 7. QEP hired a 39 year old male for the position, and Riser trained him until her termination in September 2011. She brought suit against QEP alleging, among other things, that the firm discriminated against her on the basis of gender in violation of the Equal Pay Act. The district court entered summary judgment on all claims for QEP, but the appeals court reversed and remanded on her claim under the Equal Pay Act.

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide?

2. What was the basis for the court’s conclusion that the plaintiff and her two male comparators engaged in equal work? 

3. What factors other than sex is cited by the employer? Why were they not sufficient to avoid a trial?

4. What should the employer have done differently in terms of its compensation practices?