Tara Henderson's Case

Josh Stephens

Case Studies Module 4

4/7/2018

Question 10:

Assuming that the plaintiff was able to prove she competently performed all her supervisory duties, but the defendant proved that handling the machinery was a useful, though not essential, aspect of the job, do you think the firm has borne its burden of articulating a legitimate business reason for paying the plaintiff less than her white colleagues pay? This case involves a black female claiming she was discriminated against based on her sex. Tara Henderson worked for Mid-South, and was hired in 1992. She was hired as an operator, and then was promoted to a team leader, then lastly becoming the supervisor of the Molding Department in 2005. Henderson earned $31,000 per year, but her

She provided doctor’s notes but did not always call ahead if she was not coming in. She had a meeting with HR to discuss her absenteeism, and promised to do better. In June 2012, Henderson had a meeting with HR to discuss her concerns, and her belief that she was being discriminated against based on her gender and race. Henderson also made other complaints about Mr. Robertson, and the way he treated her in the workplace and the decisions she made. After making her complaints, she was transferred to the Assembly

Mid-South used the reason of her skills to pay her less, but never offered to get her the training necessary to get a pay increase. The only way this would be acceptable, would be if Henderson refused to learn the skills the men obtained and decided to not work on the machines. I do not feel that Mid-South is in the right for paying her less than her male counterparts pay, but Henderson must prove her case and show that she is capable of doing those tasks. Henderson failed to do this, so the case decision will reflect