Happy Talk Case Summary

This case comes from the city of Happy Talk in the country of The United States of America. It concerns sexual discrimination in the work place that forced a woman, Betty Smith the plaintiff, to quit her secure job due to a hostile work environment that inflicted ill health upon the plaintiff. Specifically, she requests that the defendants, Cell Phone, Inc., pay her back wages that total 2 years of her standard pay, reinstate her to the job with a lighter workload, compensation for emotional mistreatment, and retroactive payment for the period of time when she worked for less. With these being the terms, the facts of the matter must be discussed in depth to see that a conclusion is reached that is both fair and reasonable. To put the decision

The first claim is her being a “victim of pay discrimination on the basis of her gender” – this is because she accidentally received an e-mail showing the salaries. She was towards the bottom but above the other new hire. The situation was explained to her as simply Miss Smith not having the same credentials and experience. Certain jobs pay based on credentials like public school teachers. Teachers with their Master’s degree get paid more, and the men who worked at Cell Phone, Inc. who all have college degrees (save Miss Smith) get paid more. In the report, none of the reasons cite – explicitly or indirectly – her gender being the reason she is not paid the same. Miss Smith’s next claim says “she was the victim of sex discrimination because she was given the heaviest workload in Happy Talk region”. Workload is an extremely subjective issue, and she did express that she felt her stores were the hardest to manage despite holding the same amount of stores. It did not help that in 2002, layoffs created ore of a burden for all employees who needed to take on an extra store. Store X was given to Miss

Person to person, I would have advised Miss Smith to seek those higher than Mr. Hardcharger before filing a lawsuit against the entire company. Filing a formal complaint with Human Resources (not Mr. Hardcharger) and contacting the head of the company should have been the first step -- which would have avoided these legal ramifications. If all ran smoothly, those in charge of the whole incorporation could have mediated the matters rather than find themselves in court being told they did not do enough to protect Miss Smith. There are legal reasons for my advice (if she placed a formal complaint and the company dismissed it then she legally is entitled to sue), but there are old sayings too – such as being told not to jump to conclusions. Perhaps it is harsh, but Miss Smith, sad it is that she felt was treated so unjustly, jumped to punish the company before working out the issues. Mediation is a great key to life as not all disputes can be settled in court. She was recommended by a friend in Human Resources, so why did she not reach out to her before she quit? If one learns to mediate through situations, then compromises are made and less fingers are