TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James D. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. First Victoria National Bank, a Corporation

James D. HODGSON, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST VICTORIA NATIONAL BANK, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee

Hodgson v. First Victoria Nat'l Bank, a Corp., 446 F.2d 47 (1st Cir. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
August 3, 1971
Docket
No. 30864_1
Judges
Tuttle, Thornberry, Ingraham
Citations
446 F.2d 473 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 83029 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 6691971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8672

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The Secretary of Labor brought this action under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C.A. § 206 (d) (1), for relief in connection with defendant’s alleged wage discrimination on the basis of sex.

This case is before the Court for the second time. The district court, in its first decision dismissing the action, concluded that the higher wages paid to men by defendant bank were due to the men’s participation in a training program purposed to prepare them for officer positions. Wirtz v. First Victoria Nat’l Bank, 58 CCH Lab.Cas. ¶ 32,074 (S.D. Tex.1968). Finding that the training program was vague and illusory, and administered in a discriminatory fashion against women, we reversed and remanded for a determination of whether in fact there was unequal pay for equal work and whether any differences in pay could be justified under the exceptions of the statute. Shultz v. First Victoria Nat’l Bank, 5th Cir. 1970, 420 F.2d 648 .

On remand, the district court again dismissed the action, finding that the wage differentials were due to inequality in work assignments and defendant’s merit system in the promotion of its employees. Hodgson v. First Victoria Nat’l Bank, 63 CCH Lab.Cas. ¶ 32,378 (S.D.Tex., 1970).

Review of district court findings is limited by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), and this Court cannot set aside these findings unless they are clearly erroneous. After a careful review of the record, we have found substantial evidence to support the district court decision, and cannot, therefore, consider it clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1972: 21978: 11980: 11986: 119722026peak 1972 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list