Gloria Kendall Leblanc and Helen Jenkins Roig v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, State of Louisiana

460 F.2d 1228, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9350, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 7832, 4 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 818
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 25, 1972
Docket71-3402
StatusPublished
Cited by48 cases

This text of 460 F.2d 1228 (Gloria Kendall Leblanc and Helen Jenkins Roig v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, State of Louisiana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gloria Kendall Leblanc and Helen Jenkins Roig v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, State of Louisiana, 460 F.2d 1228, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9350, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 7832, 4 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 818 (5th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this Title VII 1 suit the District Court granted a judgment declaring invalid certain Louisiana protective statutes 2 limiting the hours women may work. The lone tag end of this litigation involves the contention that the District Court erred in not granting back pay to the otherwise successful plaintiffs from the date of their EEOC charges. Congress granted broad discretion to the District Court to fashion remedies in Title VII cases as the equities of the particular case compel. 3 The plaintiffs have not sustained their burden of showing that the District Court abused this discretion in declining to allow back pay for the reasons set forth in its opinion. LeBlanc v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., E.D.La., 1971, 333 F.Supp. 602, 610-611.

Affirmed.

1

. Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.

2

. La.Rev.Stat. §§ 23:311, 314, 332, 337.

3

. The remedial provisions of Title YII provide that

“If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in * * * an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay, * * * [or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate] .”

42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(g).

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

Related

Albright v. City of New Orleans
105 F. App'x 552 (Fifth Circuit, 2004)
Albright v. City of New Orleans
208 F. Supp. 2d 634 (E.D. Louisiana, 2002)
Grann v. City of Madison
738 F.2d 786 (Seventh Circuit, 1984)
Le Beau v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co.
727 F.2d 141 (Seventh Circuit, 1984)
Franklin County Sheriff's Office v. Sellers
621 P.2d 751 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1980)
Opn. No.
New York Attorney General Reports, 1980
Kreitner v. Bendix Corp.
501 F. Supp. 415 (W.D. Michigan, 1980)
Moseley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
612 F.2d 187 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
Davis v. Braniff Airways, Inc.
468 F. Supp. 10 (N.D. Texas, 1979)
Stryker v. Register Publishing Co.
423 F. Supp. 476 (D. Connecticut, 1976)
Younger v. Glamorgan Pipe and Foundry Company
418 F. Supp. 743 (W.D. Virginia, 1976)
United States v. United States Steel Corp.
520 F.2d 1043 (Fifth Circuit, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
460 F.2d 1228, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9350, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 7832, 4 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gloria-kendall-leblanc-and-helen-jenkins-roig-v-southern-bell-telephone-ca5-1972.