Brenda BRUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO NEWSPAPER PRINTING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

Ninth Circuit

Brenda BRUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO NEWSPAPER PRINTING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

469 F.2d 89, 5 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 20, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7504, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 7981

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 19, 1972·No. 26666·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court against Brush is affirmed.

The object of the complaint was to stop the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner (published by the San Francisco Newspaper Printing Company) from using in employment ads classifications of male and female.

To rule with plaintiff-appellant would require the district court and us to find that the defendant, when it publishes help wanted ads, is an employment agency. Neither the dictionary nor the legislative history supports this construction. The legislative history contributes little.

We are in substantial agreement with the district court’s opinion. Brush v. San Francisco Newspaper Printing Company, 315 F.Supp. 577 (1970).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court against Brush is affirmed.

The object of the complaint was to stop the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner (published by the San Francisco Newspaper Printing Company) from using in employment ads classifications of male and female.

To rule with plaintiff-appellant would require the district court and us to find that the defendant, when it publishes help wanted ads, is an employment agency. Neither the dictionary nor the legislative history supports this construction. The legislative history contributes little.

We are in substantial agreement with the district court’s opinion. Brush v. San Francisco Newspaper Printing Company, 315 F.Supp. 577 (1970).

Brenda BRUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO NEWSPAPER PRINTING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, 469 F.2d 89, 5 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 20, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7504, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 7981 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

469 F.2d 89 (Brenda BRUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO NEWSPAPER PRINTING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related