Georgia Southwestern College, In re, 81-7275
| Decision Date | 26 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-7275,81-7275 |
| Citation | 649 F.2d 383 |
| Parties | In Re GEORGIA SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE, Scott Candler, Jr., Rufus R. Coody, Erwin A. Friedman, Charles A. Harris, Jesse Hill, Jr., Torbitt O. Ivey, Jr., Milton Jones, James D. Maddox, Eldridge W. McMillan, Charles T. Oxford, Lamar R. Plunkett, John H. Robinson, III, P. Bobby Smith, David Tisinger, Carey Williams, as Members, Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, and the State of Georgia, Petitioners. . Unit B |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia; Wilbur D. Owens, Jr., Judge.
George P. Shingler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.
Murray Battles, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Birmingham, Ala., Karen MacRae Smith, E.E.O.C., Appellate Atty., Appellate Branch, Washington D.C., for appellees.
Before TJOFLAT, VANCE and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges.
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition is denied.
The district court adjudicated the liability aspects of the Secretary's suit which charged the State of Georgia with violation of the Equal Pay Act 1 at Georgia Southwestern College. See Marshall v. Georgia Southwestern College, 489 F.Supp. 1322 (M.D.Ga.1980), for a complete description of the controversy by the district court. Remaining is the entry of a decree fashioning relief.
After the court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law the Secretary submitted to the court a proposed final judgment which afforded back pay to named female faculty members and enjoined the State from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex at any institution in the University System of Georgia. The defendant objected to certain specifics about the proposed computations of the back pay awards and to the breadth of the injunctive relief.
Thereafter the court sua sponte sent a memorandum to counsel for the parties in which the court suggested that they confer in order to reach an agreement on the calculation of the damages. In the memorandum the court then wrote:
As to the specifics of an injunctive order, the court desires to hear further evidence as to the manner in which faculty salaries at entering and subsequent levels are determined by the Board of Regents for its faculty as a whole and for the faculty of each institution viewed separately. Assuming that some colleges in these United States have some type of objective system of setting faculty salaries, what are those systems? Who in the world of higher education is possessed of some expertise in this area? Does the American Association of University Professors already have and if not, can it obtain more information? What additional evidence do you think the court should hear?
The State of Georgia objected to providing further evidence and filed a motion requesting the court to enter judgment. While the brief of the State in support of its motion for entry of judgment is not as clear as could be hoped for with respect to its contentions, I understand the position of the State to be that it concedes that the court can enter an injunction that would restrain the defendant State and Board of Regents from violating any provisions of the Equal Pay Act. They must concede this point because the proposed injunction is nothing but an order that the defendant obey the law. See Brennan v. J. M. Fields, Inc., 488 F.2d 443 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 95 S.Ct. 146, 42...
To continue reading
Request your trial