This case involved the EEOC's claims that Pacific Press Publishing Association, a nonprofit affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, violated Title VII by denying female employee Lorna Tobler head-of-household monetary allowances provided to similarly situated male employees and by retaliating against her for participating in EEOC proceedings and related litigation. The court addressed the history of consolidated cases, settlements, and specific requests for injunctive and monetary relief to remedy ongoing effects of the alleged discrimination and retaliation. It determined that Tobler was entitled to back pay, front pay, and related compensation after evaluating mitigation efforts, unemployment benefits, and equitable adjustments under Title VII's remedial provisions, while rejecting certain offsets and applying interest calculations.
The case involved plaintiff Librado Holguin seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare's denial of his claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, based on injuries from a 1975 automobile accident and other medical conditions. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, affirming the Secretary's decision that the plaintiff was not disabled after September 15, 1977. The court's reasoning was that the Secretary's findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record, including medical reports from consulting physicians indicating that the plaintiff's conditions did not prevent him from engaging in light or sedentary work, and that no good cause existed to remand the case for further proceedings.
In Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., independent newspaper dealers sued publishers and officers alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act through illegal vertical price restraints on newspaper distribution. After a bifurcated trial, the district court found liability on the price restraint claim but initially awarded no damages, a conclusion later reversed in part by the Ninth Circuit which remanded with a presumption favoring the fact of damages; on remand, the district court awarded only nominal damages of three dollars per plaintiff after defendants rebutted the presumption on the amount of damages. Plaintiffs then moved for attorneys' fees under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, and the court granted reasonable fees, reasoning that the established liability and nominal damages satisfied the statutory requirement of injury in business or property, making fees mandatory without regard to the size of the damages recovery.
The case involved a former U.S. Marine who sued his military superiors for damages after they allegedly failed to protect him from threats and an assault while he served as an informant, claiming violations of his Fifth Amendment rights. After the plaintiff's discharge, the sole remaining claim was for recovery on a constitutional tort theory. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the Feres doctrine bars suits for injuries arising out of or in the course of activity incident to military service. The court reasoned that this bar applies equally to claims against individual officers and to constitutional tort claims, without distinctions based on whether the conduct was intentional or the service voluntary.
James Upshur, a blind tenured teacher in the Oakland Unified School District, sued the district, its superintendent, board members, and other officials, alleging that their refusal to place him on the Administrative Preferred List violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and his equal protection and due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with related state claims. After a bench trial, the court made findings of fact that Upshur had applied for the list in 1972 and 1974, passed a written exam with a reader, but was denied placement following an oral interview. The court determined that the committee's decision rested on two grounds: doubts about Upshur's administrative skills and experience in areas like curriculum and personnel, and concerns that his blindness would hinder specific duties such as facility inspections and emergencies, based on his responses about relying on an aide. The opinion addressed the federal claims in detail while declining to reach most pendent state-law issues.
This case involved a contract dispute between Homestake Mining Company, a uranium seller, and WPPSS, a consortium of public utilities, over the supply of approximately 1.5 million pounds of uranium octoxide for the initial core of a nuclear reactor project. Homestake sued for declaratory relief, arguing that the contract was a requirements contract limiting WPPSS's option to purchase additional uranium only upon a showing of actual need, while WPPSS maintained it was a fixed-quantity contract entitling it to delivery without conditions. The court, applying Washington law, interpreted the contract's option clause and surrounding evidence to conclude it was a requirements contract. It held that WPPSS failed to demonstrate a good-faith need for the uranium and breached its duty of good faith by insisting on unconditional delivery after regulatory changes reduced the project's requirements.