The case involved the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suing Altmeyer's Home Stores for allegedly paying female managers and assistant managers lower salaries than male counterparts for equal work, in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. After a trial, the court found that the defendant intentionally discriminated by paying a female manager, Patti Shirey, less than her male predecessor for managing the same store under similar conditions. The court rejected the defendant's arguments about store size reductions and reliance on expert advice as they did not align with the evidence, concluding the pay disparity was due to sex. It awarded back pay with interest, liquidated damages equal to the back pay, and ordered future pay equalization for Shirey.
In Tener v. Hoag, terminated employees of Jones & Laughlin Steel sued corporate officers under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law to recover severance payments and liquidated damages following a plant closing. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that ERISA preempted the state-law claims and that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the officers. The court held that it had personal jurisdiction but that ERISA did not preempt the claims because the one-time severance payments involved no ongoing administrative scheme or employee benefit plan. Relying on the Supreme Court's analysis in Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, the court reasoned that the WPCL claims did not "relate to" an ERISA plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) and that Pennsylvania had a strong interest in enforcing wage obligations during plant closings. The case was therefore remanded to state court.
In Hudak v. Woods, the defendant moved to dismiss the action and dissolve a preliminary injunction, arguing that the plaintiff failed to file required briefs, that the case relitigated matters from a prior state criminal prosecution, and that the federal court lost jurisdiction after the underlying bankruptcy petition was dismissed. The court rejected all three grounds, holding that briefs were not mandatory, the federal proceeding did not duplicate the state case, and the district court retained inherent authority to enforce its injunction through contempt proceedings even after the bankruptcy was dismissed by stipulation. The opinion emphasized that the court had withdrawn the adversary proceeding from bankruptcy court and converted temporary relief into a permanent injunction, and that allowing dismissal to nullify the injunction would be inequitable and contrary to bankruptcy code provisions permitting continued jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances.
This case involved a mother's challenge under the Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975 to the Pittsburgh School District's proposed placement of her two hearing-impaired children in public school programs emphasizing sign language, rather than allowing them to remain at the private DePaul Institute, which used an oral-aural method focused on speech, language, and lip reading. The plaintiff argued that the public programs did not provide a free appropriate public education suited to the children's needs in a deaf household where sign language was primarily used at home. After reviewing testimony from educators, experts, and the family, along with reports on national deficiencies in deaf education, the court granted the petition and ordered the children to continue attending DePaul Institute through graduation at the defendants' expense. The core reasoning was that DePaul's approach better addressed the children's specific requirements for developing oral communication skills essential for societal functioning, consistent with the Act's guarantees.
The EEOC sued Altmeyer's Home Stores, Inc., alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII by paying female managers and assistant managers less than male counterparts and failing to promote women due to sex, on behalf of two named employees and a class of female workers. The court found no discrimination in pay or promotions for females as a class or in the specific claims involving Terry Lee Plotner, but determined that Patti Shirey, a female manager transferred to a larger store, received lower base pay than similarly situated males despite performing comparable duties. The decision rested on evidence that store classifications and required skills did not justify the pay disparity for Shirey, while other pay variations aligned with legitimate business factors like inventory demands and individual performance. Judgment was entered for the defendant on the class claims and for the plaintiff on Shirey's individual claim, awarding $12,402.16 in back pay plus interest.
This case involves a motion for attorney's fees submitted by counsel who successfully represented a plaintiff seeking Social Security disability benefits. The court awarded compensation solely for time spent prosecuting the matter in federal court and the court of appeals, rejecting any administrative time, and reduced the claimed hours after finding the billing practices unreasonable. Counsel had used 30-minute minimum time segments and sought payment for 35 hours preparing briefs that were largely identical between the district court and appellate levels, which the court viewed as double-billing and profiteering. The core reasoning is that fees must reflect actual, necessary work in the judicial branch, with adjustments such as converting to 15-minute segments and limiting total brief preparation to 9 hours plus minimal additions for the jurisdictional statement.
