Please review and provide your thoughts on the case below: (No less the 100 Words)

Chapter 11: A female worked for a city government as an “HR Analyst – classification and compensation.” She earned a salary equivalent to $31.01 on an hourly basis. A male HR Analyst working for the same city at the same time earned a salary equivalent to $32.93 per hour. The job descriptions for their two positions were not identical, although the city’s HR Director said that she considered the jobs to be equal. The woman’s position required a bachelor’s degree and five years of experience. The male’s position required either a bachelor’s with two years of experience or an associate’s degree and five years of experience. The city offered several reasons for the differential in pay between the two employees. The male employee had worked at least 15 more years for the city, although he had fewer years as an HR Analyst and a lengthy break-in-service had caused him to lose seniority credit for his earlier city work. The city also cited the male’s “citywide” experience as a basis for his higher pay, as he had moved between several different departments over the years. However, citywide experience is not listed on his job description or anywhere else as a requirement or preference. Lastly, the city attributed the male’s higher pay to his compensation history. His pay level during his previous stint with the city was taken into account in setting his pay when he was re-hired. The female sued for pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act. What should the court decide? Why? (See Hinders v. City of Dayton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150925 (S.D. Ohio 2013).)

___________________________

Please review Case Study in Chapter 13 on: DirecTV v. NLRB, 847 F.3d 25 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 5318. CASE IN ATTACHMENT

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide? (No less than 100 words)

2. What was the concerted activity in which the technicians engaged? What made that activity “concerted”? (No less than 100 words)

3. Why was this activity “protected” under the NLRA? Why or why not? (No less than 100 words)

4. The dissenting judge’s view was that the technicians were disloyal employees who could lawfully be fired for lying about their employer to the public. Do you agree with the view of the dissenting judge? Why or why not? (No less than 150 words)