Brenda BRUSH v. SAN FRANCISCO NEWSPAPER PRINTING COMPANY
5 Fair empl.prac.cas. 20, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7981 Brenda Brush, Plaintiff-Appelant v. San Francisco Newspaper Printing Company
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).
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Evening Sentinel v. National Organization for Women
- Cannon v. University of Chicago
- The Passaic Daily News v. Blair
- Cannon v. University of Chicago
- 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,175, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7770 Geraldine G. Cannon v. The University of Chicago, Geraldine G
- Bonomo v. National Duckpin Bowling Congress, Inc.
Most recent
- Veasy v. Teach for America, Inc.
- Bonomo v. National Duckpin Bowling Congress, Inc.
- 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,175, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7770 Geraldine G. Cannon v. The University of Chicago, Geraldine G
- Cannon v. University of Chicago
- Cannon v. University of Chicago
- Evening Sentinel v. National Organization for Women
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.