Louis Rosenberg

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

labor & employmentfederal power

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 The opinion emphasized that the court had withdrawn the adversary proceeding from bankruptcy court and converted temporary relief into a permanent injunction, and that allowing dismissal to nullify the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.

procedurefederal power

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.

civil rightsfederal power

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

procedurehealthcare

This case arose from a prior judgment awarding three former Coroner's office employees $29,196.94 in back salaries after their political dismissal without cause. When the plaintiffs sought to enforce the judgment through attachment, the County of Allegheny claimed ownership of the office assets and declined payment despite controlling the office's revenues and expenditures. The court held that the County was liable for the judgment and related attorneys' fees because it had benefited from the office's income and failed to honor a valid federal court order, ordering the County to pay the full amount with interest and additional fees totaling $30,125.25 while requiring Edberg to pay $5,400 in fees. Core reasoning focused on due process and equity to ensure justice without depriving the public of necessary property.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the U.S. Department of Defense Inspector General's petition to enforce an administrative subpoena against Westinghouse Electric Corporation for internal audit documents related to Department of Defense contracts from 1982 to 1984. Westinghouse refused to comply, arguing that the subpoena lacked specificity, served an improper purpose to aid another agency, sought irrelevant documents, and would be burdensome. The court decided to enforce the subpoena, finding it properly issued under the Inspector General Act to promote efficiency and detect fraud in DOD programs, with the requested materials being relevant and the production not unduly burdensome after considering the evidence presented.

federal powerbusiness & regulatorycriminal law

This case involves a dispute between Best Resume Service, Inc. and its former franchisee Ronald Care over the continued use of the company's trademarked name after the franchise agreement was terminated. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendant from operating a competing resume service under the same name. The court granted the injunction, finding that the franchise was properly terminated due to the defendant's failure to pay royalties and submit reports, that the defendant's right to use the mark ended with the agreement, and that continued use would likely cause confusion and irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business and goodwill. The decision was based on the terms of the franchise agreement, provisions of the Lanham Act, and evidence of infringement.

business & regulatory

This case involved a claim by Theodore Nolen, Jr. against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for alleged medical negligence by Veterans Administration doctors in failing to properly diagnose and treat a spinal cord condition, resulting in his paraplegia. The plaintiff argued that the doctors erred by not using appropriate positions for myelograms and not performing additional tests to rule out a tumor instead of diagnosing multiple sclerosis. The court decided in favor of the defendant, entering judgment for the United States. The reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence by a preponderance of the evidence, as expert testimony supported the reasonableness of the diagnostic approach and tests conducted by the VA physicians.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involves a former employee who filed a complaint with OSHA regarding alleged workplace hazards and later sought access to the agency's full investigation file under the Privacy Act and FOIA, along with corrections to the records and a writ of mandamus to address the hazards. The court had initially denied the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment but, on reconsideration, granted it. The court reasoned that the Privacy Act applies only to files retrievable by the requester's name as the identifier, not files indexed under the employer, and that FOIA exemptions protected predecisional deliberative materials and confidential witness information from disclosure.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

The case Whitman v. Fuqua was a follow-on action to a prior proxy dispute involving Cyprus Corporation, in which plaintiff Martin J. Whitman alleged that defendants (including directors aligned with the Rockwell group) held an improper post-election meeting of the old board on March 19, 1982, to appoint an Executive Committee, approve acquisitions and officer contracts, and take other steps that could neutralize the results of the March 12 shareholder election won by preferred-stock candidates. The court considered whether that meeting and its actions were legal or ultra vires, whether they were intended to defeat the election outcome or the defeat of proposed charter amendments, and whether they breached fiduciary duties under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The opinion analyzes the facts surrounding the election, supplemental proxy disclosures, and the timing of the Fort Lauderdale actions, framing the issues for potential equitable relief to protect shareholders and corporate governance rules.

business & regulatoryelectionsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Vernon R. McCreary, who sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after suffering a severe arm injury at the Craig Strip Mine in Pennsylvania, alleging that Mine Safety and Health Administration inspectors negligently failed to close the mine or warn of dangers despite prior violations of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. The defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that no duty was owed to the plaintiff. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the FTCA waives sovereign immunity only where a private individual would be liable under applicable federal or state law, but neither the mine safety statute nor Pennsylvania's good Samaritan doctrine (Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 323, 324A) created such a duty from regulatory inspections. The opinion emphasized that statutory inspections serve the government rather than individual miners and do not establish a private right of action.

torts & liabilityfederal power

The case involved plaintiff Laura M. Mosey appealing the denial of supplemental security income disability benefits by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, following an Administrative Law Judge's determination that she could return to her prior jobs despite claimed physical and mental impairments. The district court, adopting the magistrate's report, denied the parties' summary judgment motions and remanded the matter to the Secretary for further consideration. The core reasoning was that the ALJ failed to provide reasons for rejecting key medical evidence such as Dr. Crider's report on the plaintiff's obsessive compulsive phobic reaction, omitted documented conditions like degenerative disc disease and anxiety neurosis from the findings, and did not assess the plaintiff's credibility, contrary to requirements under precedents like Baerga v. Richardson and Kephart v. Richardson and the statutory definition of disability in 42 U.S.C. § 423(d).

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

In Tunnell v. Robinson, a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution in Pittsburgh filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials, alleging violations including restricted access to bank passbooks and financial transactions, denial of mail orders from certain retailers, inadequate rehabilitation programs, insufficient medical care and X-rays, unsanitary dining facilities, and limited family visitation. The case was referred to a magistrate who held an evidentiary hearing and recommended findings that none of the claims demonstrated violations of constitutional or federal rights. The district court adopted the magistrate's findings and conclusions, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof. The court reasoned that lawful incarceration necessarily deprives prisoners of many rights and privileges enjoyed in free society, that federal courts address only substantial federal questions rather than internal prison matters, and that discretionary prison policies do not automatically implicate constitutional protections.

civil rightscriminal law

This case involved two former employees of United States Steel Corporation who sued the company and its pension fund, alleging they were wrongfully denied pension benefits under the company's contributory plan after meeting the 'Rule of 65' eligibility criteria. The plaintiffs sought recovery of monthly benefits, enforcement of plan rights, and other relief under ERISA §502. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the plaintiffs had not exhausted the plan's internal dispute resolution process, which included appeals to the plan administrator and arbitration. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that ERISA requires claimants to exhaust administrative remedies outlined in the plan before filing suit in federal court, consistent with precedents under the Labor-Management Relations Act, and that the plaintiffs had not shown futility or denial of access to those procedures.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned the United States' petition to enforce a NIOSH subpoena duces tecum against Westinghouse Electric Corporation for production of employee medical records as part of an occupational health hazard evaluation at the company's Trafford, Pennsylvania plant, prompted by employee complaints about exposure to methyl ethyl ketone and other chemicals potentially causing respiratory issues like asthma. After a hearing with evidence from both sides, the district court made findings of fact detailing the NIOSH investigation process, the relevance of the records to assessing toxic effects in the workplace, and the scope of the statutory authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The court reasoned that federal law empowered NIOSH to investigate potential hazards beyond the specific chemicals initially mentioned and that the need for complete medical data to fulfill Congress's directive outweighed the employer's objections based on employee privacy and state physician-patient privilege.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a beneficiary suing an insurance company in equity after it stopped making monthly disability payments under a policy, seeking specific performance to compel ongoing payments. The defendant removed the case to federal court and argued that the plaintiff was not disabled under the policy terms, that payments were not required, and that an adequate remedy existed at law. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to advance the case for a preliminary order compelling payments, holding that under Pennsylvania and federal precedent, an insurer's denial of liability short of contract repudiation allows recovery only for payments due at the time suit is filed, not future benefits via specific performance. Because the plaintiff could not show a likelihood of success on the equitable claim, the motion was denied and the case was directed to standard pretrial procedures.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a petition to revoke the probation of Dennis Joel Jurgins, who had been convicted by jury of receiving a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce and sentenced to five years imprisonment with the sentence suspended in favor of four years probation. The probation officer petitioned for revocation after Jurgins was arrested twice on August 6, 1978, for robbery and related charges, spent ten days in jail, and failed to report the arrests to his probation officer for twenty-five days despite knowing the conditions of probation that required immediate reporting and compliance with the law. A hearing was held at which the government presented evidence of the arrests and lack of reporting, Jurgins claimed he had instructed a prison official to notify the officer but offered no supporting testimony, and the court applied due process standards from Gagnon v. Scarpelli and Morrissey v. Brewer. The court decided that Jurgins had violated the conditions of probation, finding the evidence sufficient to satisfy judicial discretion without requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and stated that an order would follow.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a Freedom of Information Act request by an administrative law judge employed by the Social Security Administration seeking names, addresses, and details of outside work activities approved for other similar judges. The agency provided partial information but withheld identifying details, claiming exemptions under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) for matters related solely to internal personnel rules and practices. The court examined the legislative history and precedents, concluding that the requested information concerned routine internal housekeeping matters within the agency's discretion to manage employee conflicts of interest and workloads. Accordingly, the court held the information exempt and denied the plaintiff's request for an injunction ordering disclosure.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure