@EOTL, I'm not going to allow you to misquote or misrepresent what I wrote without calling you on it.
Concerning point 1: Yes, when we are asking whether the deal was in violation of Title VII or the EPA we look at the circumstances at the time. Here the deal was made in 2010/11 AND the "quality/quantity" affirmative defense the Federation has arose at that time. The facts giving rise to the affirmative defense requires a historical analysis. Whether the deal is objectively unfair now (2020) is not relevant for the lawsuit and outside the time period. The women and federation can sit down at the negotiating table and renegotiate at any time or wait for the contract to end and restart.
Concerning point 2: My comment was limited to the "unequal compensation" claim, which is and has been the entirety of the discussion/debate. The other claims are proceeding so not relevant to our discussion. What I wrote was "Under TItle VII and the EPA we look at all compensation. Starting at "base compensation" and then "non base compensation." Attempting to misquote by omitting the "and the EPA" which qualified the statement to compensation analysis is misleading on your part.
Concerning point 3: The issues of charter flights and training and playing conditions remain the subject of the lawsuit and outside this discussion (see point 2). Whether the Federation engaged in discriminatory conduct is subject to disputed testimony. The USWNT alleged the MNT received charter flights and they didn't which was discriminatory. The Federation presented evidence that the reason the MNT flew by charter was it was necessary to meet rest and timing requirements for high profile games (I recall the Mexico game was a 3 or 4 day period). I don't know if the women were in similar circumstances, but that is for the lawyers and witnesses. As far as playing on artificial turf in the World Cup (Canada), that was a FIFA call, not the Federation, but I recall the women refusing to play on artificial turf in Hawaii so its possible the WNT has some traction here.
@EOTL, I'm not going to allow you to misquote or misrepresent what I wrote without calling you on it.
Concerning point 1: Yes, when we are asking whether the deal was in violation of Title VII or the EPA we look at the circumstances at the time. Here the deal was made in 2010/11 AND the "quality/quantity" affirmative defense the Federation has arose at that time. The facts giving rise to the affirmative defense requires a historical analysis. Whether the deal is objectively unfair now (2020) is not relevant for the lawsuit and outside the time period. The women and federation can sit down at the negotiating table and renegotiate at any time or wait for the contract to end and restart.
Concerning point 2: My comment was limited to the "unequal compensation" claim, which is and has been the entirety of the discussion/debate. The other claims are proceeding so not relevant to our discussion. What I wrote was "Under TItle VII and the EPA we look at all compensation. Starting at "base compensation" and then "non base compensation." Attempting to misquote by omitting the "and the EPA" which qualified the statement to compensation analysis is misleading on your part.
Concerning point 3: The issues of charter flights and training and playing conditions remain the subject of the lawsuit and outside this discussion (see point 2). Whether the Federation engaged in discriminatory conduct is subject to disputed testimony. The USWNT alleged the MNT received charter flights and they didn't which was discriminatory. The Federation presented evidence that the reason the MNT flew by charter was it was necessary to meet rest and timing requirements for high profile games (I recall the Mexico game was a 3 or 4 day period). I don't know if the women were in similar circumstances, but that is for the lawyers and witnesses. As far as playing on artificial turf in the World Cup (Canada), that was a FIFA call, not the Federation, but I recall the women refusing to play on artificial turf in Hawaii so its possible the WNT has some traction here.
