33 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1485, 22 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,772 Dorothy Bannerman v. Department of Youth Authority, Allen F. Breed
This text of 615 F.2d 847 (33 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1485, 22 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,772 Dorothy Bannerman v. Department of Youth Authority, Allen F. Breed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Two women who were not hired as parole agents of the California Department of Youth Authority sued for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII. They appeal a judgment for the defendants. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the district judge in his opinion reported at 436 F.Supp. 1273 (N.D.Cal.1977).
One point urged on appeal was obviated by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979), which upheld the right of a state to grant preference to veterans in public employment. The other points, particularly that the oral interview process discriminated against women job applicants, are fully answered in the careful analysis of the evidence by the trial judge. The court, in detailed findings that survive review under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52, found that there was a failure of proof of gender-based discrimination.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
615 F.2d 847, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19385, 22 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 30,772, 33 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/33-fair-emplpraccas-1485-22-empl-prac-dec-p-30772-dorothy-bannerman-ca9-1980.