Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jurinko v. Edwin L. Wiegand Co.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT


February 21, 1974

JOSEPHINE JURINKO AND IDA M. SEIBERT, APPELLANTS
v.
EDWIN L. WIEGAND COMPANY, A CORPORATION AND LOCAL 1020, UAW, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION. JOSEPHINE JURINKO AND IDA M. SEIBERT V. EDWIN L. WIEGAND COMPANY, APPELLANT, A CORPORATION, AND LOCAL 1020, UAW, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Before BIGGS, GIBBONS, Circuit Judges, and HUYETT, District Judge.

Opinion ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Per Curiam.

Our decision in this case was in favor or the plaintiffs-appellants, Jurinko and Seibert v. Wiegand, 477 F.2d 1038 (1973), and, after the denial of a petition for rehearing, certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court, sub nom. Wiegand v. Jurinko, 414 U.S. 970 (1973), and our judgment was vacated and the cause remanded to us on October 23, 1973, for further consideration in the light of McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

We have completed this consideration and we state the following: The plaintiffs established (1) that they were female, (2) that they had applied for jobs for which they were qualified, as demonstrated by their previous employments and records, (3) that despite their qualifications, prima facie established, they were rejected and (4) that after their rejection the positions remained open until the employer hired males.

In view of the foregoing we are convinced that our original judgment in favor of plaintiffs-appellants was correct in the light of McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, supra. We, therefore, direct the district court, in the terms of our original opinion, to modify its judgment to expand the award to the plaintiffs-appellants to include seniority and back pay from the date of the unlawful practice of June 1966 up to the date on which they are actually reinstated.

In all other respects the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

19740221

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.