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.

JACKSON v. ARMSTRONG SCH. DIST.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


April 12, 1977

Mary JACKSON and Elizabeth A. Pollick, Plaintiffs,
v.
ARMSTRONG SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILLER

MEMORANDUM

 JOHN L. MILLER, District Judge.

 Mary Jackson and Elizabeth A. Pollick bring this sex discrimination suit to rectify an employment situation which they contend is violative of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (Title VII), *fn1" and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA). *fn2" Before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss per Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As grounds for dismissal defendant asserts with respect to Count I (Title VII claim) that plaintiffs have (1) failed to state a claim of sex discrimination and ((2) failed to join an indispensable party. With respect to Count II (PHRA claim) defendant incorporates the above mentioned grounds and also asserts that we lack jurisdiction over the subject matter.

 Our concern for proper jurisdiction always being primary, we turn our attention first to Count II. Despite the complaint's averments the sole jurisdictional basis for this lawsuit is found in Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). Plaintiffs erroneously maintain that this Court's jurisdiction also attaches by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4) *fn3" and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. Section 1343(4) confers jurisdiction over civil rights claims arising under federal statutes not here pertinent. And the declaratory judgment statute, not being a jurisdictional base, merely creates a remedy where federal jurisdiction independently exists. See Jones v. United Gas Improvement Corp., 383 F. Supp. 420, 422 n. 1 (E.D.Pa.1974). The Court therefore has no jurisdiction over the claim being advanced under the PHRA.

 With regard to Count I defendant makes two arguments either of which, if accepted, calls for dismissal of the Title VII claim. Under the facts alleged we are persuaded that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Title VII and shall dismiss on that ground alone. Taking the allegations of the complaint as true the claim sub judice is stated as follows:

 Both plaintiffs are employed as school teachers in the defendant school district. Jackson works at Worthington High School which is situated in Worthington, Pennsylvania while Pollick practices her profession at Ford City High School in Ford City, Pennsylvania. This case does not, however, concern their duties as teachers in the academic sense but rather as instructors in the athletic sense. For at their respective schools plaintiffs are, and have been since 1972, engaged in the coaching of women's basketball at both the Varsity and Junior Varsity levels. In exchange for these extra-curricular duties plaintiffs are compensated at the rate of $324.00 per year while their counterparts -- presumably all men -- who coach men's basketball are paid as follows: MEN'S VARSITY JUNIOR VARSITY $ 972.00 - first year $756.00 - first year $1080.00 - second year $864.00 - second year $1296.00 - third year $972.00 - each succeeding year

19770412

© 1992-2004 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.