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.