Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
James D. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, United Statesdepartment of Labor, Appellee, v. Baltimore Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workersof America, Afl-cio, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, - 462 F.2d 180
Bernard W. Rubenstein, Baltimore, Md. (Jacob J. Edelman, Bernard P. Jeweler, and Edelman, Levy, & Rubenstein, Baltimore, Md. on brief), for appellant.
Carin Ann Clauss, Asst. Sol., U. S. Department of Labor (Richard F. Schubert, Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Anastasia T. Dunau, Sylvia S. Ellison, Attys., Washington, D. C., and Louis Weiner, Regional Sol., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Senior Circuit Judge, and WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Baltimore Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO [Union] prosecutes this appeal from a judgment of the District Court imposing upon it joint and several liability with Sagner, Inc., a clothing manufacturer. The employer discriminated against certain women employees by paying them less than their male counterparts for equivalent work. Sagner finally admitted the discrimination and offered to make restitution. But at the instigation of the appellant Union and in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., the major part of the arrearage due was diverted to increase the pay of another group of employees also represented by the Union.
For reasons sufficiently indicated by the District Court, Hodgson v. Sagner, Inc., 326 F.Supp. 371 (D.Md.1971), we agree that the court was within its general equitable powers in imposing such liability upon the Union. The judgment is therefore
Affirmed.