EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant

Fourth Circuit

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant

688 F.2d 951, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25498, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,051, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1441

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 20, 1982·No. 79-1515·Published·Cited by 21 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 645 F.2d 183 (4 Cir. 1981), a case instituted by EEOC under Title VII, we affirmed a judgment of the district court finding discrimination in employment by refusal to hire, practiced against ten women, including applicants Judy Gaddis and Rebecca Starr, and remanded the case to the district court to consider further remedies. The judgment of the district court awarded back pay to the women- against whom discrimination had been practiced.

On review of our decision in Ford Motor Company v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 3057, 73 L.Ed.2d 721 (1982), our holding with regard to the amount of back pay awarded to Gaddis and Starr was reversed but in other respects our decision was not disturbed. With respect to Gaddis and Starr, the Court held that “absent special circumstances”, neither was entitled to back pay after the date in 1973 when Ford offered them employment.

In obedience to the mandate of the Court, we amend our former judgment by vacating the back pay awards to Gaddis and Starr and remanding their claims to the district court for reconsideration and re-computation in accordance with the Court’s

decision in Ford Motor Company. In all other respects our judgment is unchanged. Costs shall be equally divided between the parties.

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

PER CURIAM:

In EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 645 F.2d 183 (4 Cir. 1981), a case instituted by EEOC under Title VII, we affirmed a judgment of the district court finding discrimination in employment by refusal to hire, practiced against ten women, including applicants Judy Gaddis and Rebecca Starr, and remanded the case to the district court to consider further remedies. The judgment of the district court awarded back pay to the women- against whom discrimination had been practiced.

On review of our decision in Ford Motor Company v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 3057, 73 L.Ed.2d 721 (1982), our holding with regard to the amount of back pay awarded to Gaddis and Starr was reversed but in other respects our decision was not disturbed. With respect to Gaddis and Starr, the Court held that “absent special circumstances”, neither was entitled to back pay after the date in 1973 when Ford offered them employment.

In obedience to the mandate of the Court, we amend our former judgment by vacating the back pay awards to Gaddis and Starr and remanding their claims to the district court for reconsideration and re-computation in accordance with the Court’s

decision in Ford Motor Company. In all other respects our judgment is unchanged. Costs shall be equally divided between the parties.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant, 688 F.2d 951, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25498, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,051, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1441 (4th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

688 F.2d 951 (EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Richard C. Gaworski, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor v. Itt Commercial Finance Corp., a Nevada Corporation Itt Financial Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Itt Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Richard C. Gaworski, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor v. Itt Commercial Finance Corp., a Nevada Corporation Itt Financial Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Itt Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

17 F.3d 1104 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)

Gaworski v. ITT Commercial Finance Corp.

17 F.3d 1104 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)

World Mart, Inc. v. Ditsch

855 P.2d 1228 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1993)

Sims v. Mme. Paulette Dry Cleaners

638 F. Supp. 224 (S.D. New York, 1986)

Bonura v. Chase Manhattan Bank, NA

629 F. Supp. 353 (S.D. New York, 1986)

Barbara C. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John O. MARSH, Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee

766 F.2d 490 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)

Donovan v. George Lai Contracting, Ltd.

629 F. Supp. 121 (W.D. Missouri, 1985)

Sawyer v. Swift & Co.

610 F. Supp. 38 (D. Kansas, 1985)

Airport Inn, Inc. v. Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission

353 N.W.2d 727 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1984)

35 Fair empl.prac.cas. 371, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,544, 5 Employee Benefits Ca 1816 McDowell Robert, in No. 83-1455 v. Avtex Fibers, Inc., in No. 83-1434

740 F.2d 214 (Third Circuit, 1984)

McDowell v. Avtex Fibers, Inc.

740 F.2d 214 (Third Circuit, 1984)

33 Fair empl.prac.cas. 187, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,922 Valerie A. Craig, Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Y & Y Snacks, Inc. A/K/A Popcorn Supply Co., Appellant-Cross-Appellee

721 F.2d 77 (Third Circuit, 1983)

Craig v. Y & Y Snacks, Inc.

721 F.2d 77 (Third Circuit, 1983)

32 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 688, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,758 David L. Rasimas, Cross-Appellee v. Michigan Department of Mental Health, Cross-Appellant

714 F.2d 614 (Sixth Circuit, 1983)

Rasimas v. Michigan Department of Mental Health

714 F.2d 614 (Sixth Circuit, 1983)

Opinion

Related