%19 %12 %10 %2 SafeAssign Originality Report CSU SafeAssign Plagiarism Check Tool • SafeAssign Originality Report Generator I %43Total Score: High riskPanesia Thomas Kitchen Submission UUID: 83188a09-be6a-3c4a-38ba-8804706ec7a6 Total Number of Reports 1 Highest Match 43 % CaseAnalysis.docx Average Match 43 % Submitted on 03/19/20 10:17 AM EDT Average Word Count 821 Highest: CaseAnalysis.docx %43Attachment 1 Institutional database (5) Student paper Student paper Student paper Student paper Student paper Global database (4) Student paper Student paper Student paper Student paper Internet (1) adenverlawyer Scholarly journals & publications (1) ProQuest document Top sources (3) Excluded sources (0) View Originality Report - Old Design Word Count: 821 CaseAnalysis.docx 3 9 4 2 6 5 1 10 8 7 11 7 adenverlawyer 5 Student paper 3 Student paper https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport?attemptId=0cfae746-cad0-43df-90d5-0f1939c9119c&course_id=_65335_1&download=true&includeDeleted=true&print=true&force=true Source Matches (15) Student paper 95% Student paper 95% Student paper 65% Student paper 88% Case of Riser v. QEP Energy Panesia Kitchen Columbia Southern University Case of Riser v. QEP Energy The legal issues in this case are first discrimination of the plaintiff, Kathy Risper by the defendant QEP Energy Company on the basis of gender and age which is in violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and the also the age discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EPA normally prohibits wage discrimination between employees on the basis of sex, for equal work on jobs, the performance requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility which are performed under similar working conditions (Tufarolo, 2016). The plaintiff established a valid prima facie, she was able to demonstrate the ability to perform work which was substantially equal to that of the male employees considering the skills, duties, supervision, effort and responsibilities of the jobs. She was involved in managing a fleet of over two hundred vehicles, facility management and managing construction projects. According to Tufarolo, (2016) the defendant dint have any complaint on the execution of duties by the plaintiff. Furthermore, on the evaluations done on Ms Risper for the year 2010, by Mr Bench, she had exceeded her expectations. While working at QEP, the plaintiff also never received any disciplinary issues nor warnings, suspensions or probation. It is also viewed that the conditions where the work was performed were basically the same since Ms Risper’s job description was used to come up with Mathew Chinn’s job description (Yusko et al., 2017). The basis of equal work is based on Mr Chinn's fleet administration duties. Tufarolo, (2016) suggests that Mr Chinn’s duties were a replica of Ms Riser's duties. Ms Riser performed all of the fleet administration duties after Mr Chinn was hired and took on the responsibi.

1. %19
%12
%10
%2
SafeAssign Originality Report
CSU SafeAssign Plagiarism Check Tool • SafeAssign
Originality Report Generator I
%43Total Score: High riskPanesia Thomas Kitchen
Submission UUID: 83188a09-be6a-3c4a-38ba-8804706ec7a6
Total Number of Reports
1
Highest Match
43 %
CaseAnalysis.docx
Average Match
43 %
Submitted on
03/19/20
10:17 AM EDT
Average Word Count

2. 821
Highest: CaseAnalysis.docx
%43Attachment 1
Institutional database (5)
Student paper Student paper Student paper
Student paper Student paper
Global database (4)
Student paper Student paper Student paper
Student paper
Internet (1)
adenverlawyer
Scholarly journals & publications (1)
ProQuest document
Top sources (3)
Excluded sources (0)
View Originality Report - Old Design
Word Count: 821
CaseAnalysis.docx
3 9 4

3. 2 6
5 1 10
8
7
11
7 adenverlawyer 5 Student paper 3 Student paper
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-
bb_bb60/originalityReport?attemptId=0cfae746-cad0-43df-
90d5-
0f1939c9119c&course_id=_65335_1&download=true&includeD
eleted=true&print=true&force=true
Source Matches (15)
Student paper 95%
Student paper 95%
Student paper 65%
Student paper 88%
Case of Riser v. QEP Energy Panesia Kitchen Columbia
Southern University
Case of Riser v. QEP Energy
The legal issues in this case are first discrimination of the

4. plaintiff, Kathy Risper by the defendant QEP Energy Company
on the basis of gender and age which is
in violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and the also the age
discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EPA normally
prohibits wage discrimination between
employees on the basis of sex, for equal work on jobs, the
performance requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility
which are performed under similar working
conditions (Tufarolo, 2016). The plaintiff established a valid
prima facie, she was able to demonstrate the ability to perform
work which was substantially equal to
that of the male employees considering the skills, duties,
supervision, effort and responsibilities of the jobs. She was
involved in managing a fleet of over two hundred
vehicles, facility management and managing construction
projects. According to Tufarolo, (2016) the defendant dint have
any complaint on the execution of duties by
the plaintiff. Furthermore, on the evaluations done on Ms Risper
for the year 2010, by Mr Bench, she had exceeded her
expectations. While working at QEP, the
plaintiff also never received any disciplinary issues nor
warnings, suspensions or probation. It is also viewed that the
conditions where the work was performed were
basically the same since Ms Risper’s job description was used
to come up with Mathew Chinn’s job description (Yusko et al.,
2017). The basis of equal work is based on
Mr Chinn's fleet administration duties. Tufarolo, (2016)
suggests that Mr Chinn’s duties were a replica of Ms Riser's
duties. Ms Riser performed all of the fleet
administration duties after Mr Chinn was hired and took on the
responsibilities. Ms Riser also discussed the duties with Mr
Bench to prepare Mr Chinn's job

5. description and trained him to perform the same duties then
finally she was termination. As Mr Bench explained, there were
no tasks on Mr Chinn's job
description that Ms Riser was not previously responsible for
performing. The appeal court dismissed Ms Riser's
discriminatory discharge based on the grounds that
she had not established a prima facie case, and that even if she
had, QEP had supplied a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason
for the discharge that Mr Riser did not
show to be pretextual (Tufarolo, 2016). Other-than-sex Factor
Insufficient to Avoid a Trial
Ms Riser was unable to show that she occupies a job similar to
that of higher paid male. It was also considered that an
individual's former salary can be
considered in determining whether pay disparity is based on a
factor other than sex. QEP had articulated a legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason for the pay disparity
between Ms Riser and Mr Chinn and Mr Bryanta and its pay
classification system. Due to this the burden of production
shifted to Ms Riser to show that company
compensation or that gender or age was a determining factor in
QEP's decision to pay her less money. This can be reflected by
such weaknesses, inconsistencies,
incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer's proffered
legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder
could rationally find them unworthy of
credence and hence suggest that the employer did not act for the
asserted non-discriminatory reasons (Tufarolo, 2016). What The
Employer Needed to Do Differently
The employer would have given Ms Riser a well elaborated job
description and ensure fairness at work. This would have

6. included getting her views on the job and
salary. According to Malhotra et al, (2018) everyone should be
treated fairly at work and work-related decisions. The employee
should make sure that their company’s
policies don't inadvertently put certain groups at a
disadvantage. They also should actively promote equality and
inclusion, ensuring people are free to focus on what
matters most to the company. Diversity and equal treatment in
the workplace are vital to a healthy, growing company and even
generating its profits. Employing
people of all genders and races can make an organization
stronger. It's was also important for them to remember they
would have been held accountable for
perpetrating discriminatory and this will affect their reputation
and thus take corrective measures (Yusko et al., 2017).
References
Malhotra, L., & Sing, J. (2018). Employees perception towards
talent management of organization: A study of gender equality
at workplace. International Journal of
Management, IT and Engineering, 8(7), 411-419. Tufarolo, M.
A. (2016). You Haven't Come a Long Way, Baby: The Courts'
Inability to Eliminate the Gender
Gap Fifty-Two Years After the Passage of the Equal Pay Act.
American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the
Law, 24(2), 5. Yusko, K. P., Bellenger, B. L.,
Larson, E. C., Hanges, P. J., & Aiken, J. R. (2017). Legal and
fairness considerations in employee selection. Pulakos, J.
Passmore & C. Semedo (Eds.), The Wiley
Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection
and employee retention, 422-441.
1

7. 1
2
3
4
5
5
2
6 1
7
8 9
10 11
1
Student paper
Case of Riser v.
Original source
In the case of Riser V
1
Student paper

8. Case of Riser v.
Original source
In the case of Riser V
2
Student paper
The legal issues in this case are first
discrimination of the plaintiff, Kathy
Risper by the defendant QEP Energy
Company on the basis of gender and age
which is in violation of the Equal Pay Act
(EPA) and the also the age discrimination
in Employment Act (ADEA).
Original source
QEP Energy case presented the violation
of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
3
Student paper
The EPA normally prohibits wage
discrimination between employees on
the basis of sex, for equal work on jobs,
the performance requires equal skill,
effort, and responsibility which are
performed under similar working
conditions (Tufarolo, 2016).

9. Original source
The EPA prohibits wage discrimination
between employees on the basis of sex
for equal work on jobs the performance
of which requires equal skill, effort, and
responsibility, and which are performed
under similar working conditions (Walsh,
n.d.)
Student paper 74%
Student paper 88%
Student paper 90%
Student paper 85%
Student paper 65%
Student paper 87%
adenverlawyer 70%
Student paper 100%
Student paper 100%
Student paper 100%
ProQuest document 88%
4

10. Student paper
The plaintiff established a valid prima
facie, she was able to demonstrate the
ability to perform work which was
substantially equal to that of the male
employees considering the skills, duties,
supervision, effort and responsibilities of
the jobs.
Original source
To establish a prima facie case of Riser
must prove (1)she was performing work
which was substantially equal to that of
the male employees considering the
skills, duties, supervision, effort and
responsibilities of the jobs
5
Student paper
Ms Riser performed all of the fleet
administration duties after Mr Chinn was
hired and took on the responsibilities.
Original source
Ms Riser performed all of the fleet
administration duties for QEP until Mr
Chinn was hired and took on these
responsibilities
5

11. Student paper
As Mr Bench explained, there were no
tasks on Mr Chinn's job description that
Ms Riser was not previously responsible
for performing.
Original source
As Ms Riser’s direct supervisor, Mr Bench,
explained, there were no tasks on Mr
Chinn’s job description that Ms Riser was
not previously responsible for
performing
2
Student paper
Other-than-sex Factor Insufficient to
Avoid a Trial
Original source
Other-than-sex Factors Insufficient to
Avoid a Trial
6
Student paper
Ms Riser was unable to show that she
occupies a job similar to that of higher
paid male.
Original source

12. Ms Riser had to show she occupies a job
similar to that of higher paid males and
show she was paid less than similarly
situated younger employees
1
Student paper
It was also considered that an
individual's former salary can be
considered in determining whether pay
disparity is based on a factor other than
sex.
Original source
QEP is correct that an individual’s former
salary can be considered in determining
whether pay disparity is based on a
factor other than sex
7
Student paper
This can be reflected by such
weaknesses, inconsistencies,
incoherencies, or contradictions in the
employer's proffered legitimate reasons
for its action that a reasonable factfinder
could rationally find them unworthy of
credence and hence suggest that the
employer did not act for the asserted
non-discriminatory reasons (Tufarolo,

13. 2016).
Original source
Pretext may be established directly by
showing that the employer “was more
likely than not motivated by a
discriminatory reason,” or indirectly by
presenting evidence that the “employer’s
explanation is not credible.” A plaintiff
demonstrates pretext by producing
evidence of such weaknesses,
implausibilities, inconsistencies,
incoherencies, or contradictions in the
employer’s proffered legitimate reasons
for its action that a reasonable factfinder
could rationally find them unworthy of
credence and hence infer that the
employer did not act for the asserted
non-discriminatory reasons
8
Student paper
You Haven't Come a Long Way, Baby:
Original source
You Haven’t Come a Long Way, Baby
9
Student paper
The Courts' Inability to Eliminate the

14. Gender Gap Fifty-Two Years After the
Passage of the Equal Pay Act. American
University Journal of Gender, Social
Policy & the Law, 24(2), 5.
Original source
The Courts' Inability to Eliminate the
Gender Gap Fifty-Two Years After the
Passage of the Equal Pay Act American
University Journal of Gender, Social
Policy & the Law, 24(2), 5
10
Student paper
Legal and fairness considerations in
employee selection.
Original source
Legal and fairness considerations in
employee selection
11
Student paper
Semedo (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell
handbook of the psychology of
recruitment, selection and employee
retention, 422-441.
Original source

15. Semedo (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell
handbook of the psychology of
recruitment, selection and employee
retention (pp