Brush v. San Francisco Newspaper Printing Company, 26666.
| Decision Date | 19 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 26666.,26666. |
| Citation | 469 F.2d 89 |
| Parties | Brenda BRUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO NEWSPAPER PRINTING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jerome B. Falk, Jr. (argued), of Howard, Prim, Smith, Rice & Downs, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
William J. Dowling, III (argued), of Cooper, White & Cooper, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Philip B. Sklover (argued), Stanley P. Herbert, Gen. Counsel, of Equal Employment Opportunity Comm., Washington, D. C., Chester F. Relyea, of Equal Employment Opportunity Comm., San Francisco, Cal., Jettie Pierce Selvig, Elizabeth M. Boyer, Attys. of Women's Equity Action League, Novelty, Ohio, Jack Greenberg, William Robinson, Attys., NAACP Legal Defense, New York City, William Turner, Oscar Williams, Attys., NAACP Legal Defense, San Francisco, Cal., amicus curiae.
Before CHAMBERS and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and McNICHOLS,* District Judge.
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).
* The Honorable Ray McNichols, United States District Judge for the District of Idaho, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cannon v. University of Chicago, s. 76-1238
...as their profession or business." Brush v. San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co., 315 F.Supp. 577, 580 (N.D.Cal. 1970), aff'd, 469 F.2d 89 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 943, 93 S.Ct. 1369, 35 L.Ed.2d 609. See also Greenfield v. Field Enterprises, 4 Fair Employment Practice Cases 548......
-
Evening Sentinel v. National Organization for Women
...although a newspaper is not an employment agency, Brush v. San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co., 315 F.Supp. 577 (N.D.Cal.), aff'd, 469 F.2d 89 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 943, 93 S.Ct. 1369, 35 L.Ed.2d 609, it still may violate the CFEP by aiding and abetting the commission of unfai......
-
Veasy v. Teach for Am., Inc.
...wanted” listings under separate “men” and “women” headings did not constitute employment agencies for Title VII purposes), aff'd469 F.2d 89 (9th Cir.1972), cert. denied410 U.S. 943, 93 S.Ct. 1369, 35 L.Ed.2d 609 (1973). However, Brush is plainly inapposite here. First, the case concerned th......
-
Veasy v. Teach for America, Inc.
...wanted" listings under separate "men" and "women" headings did not constitute employment agencies for Title VII purposes), aff'd 469 F.2d 89 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 943, 93 S. Ct. 1369, 35 L. Ed. 2d 609 (1973). However, Brush is plainly inapposite here. First, the case concer......
-
Discriminatory housing statements and s. 3604(c): a new look at the Fair Housing Act's most intriguing provision.
...cases exist, most dealing with sex discrimination. E.g., Brush v. S. F. Newspaper Printing Co., 315 F. Supp. 577 (N.D. Cal. 1970), aff'd, 469 F.2d 89 (9th Cir. 1972) (holding that newspaper may not be sued under Title VII for carrying employment ads in separate "Men" and "Women" categories)......