E.E.O.C. v. CBS, Inc., 1295
| Decision Date | 21 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 1295,1295 |
| Citation | 748 F.2d 124 |
| Parties | 36 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 575, 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,847, 5 Employee Benefits Ca 2531 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CBS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. ocket 84-6063. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Mark S. Flynn, Atty., E.E.O.C., Washington, D.C. (Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert E. Kopp, Douglas Letter, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Johnny J. Butler, Gen. Counsel (Acting), Philadelphia, Pa., Philip B. Sklover, Associate Gen. Counsel, Vella M. Fink, Asst. Gen. Counsel, E.E.O.C., Washington, D.C., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Thomas R. Stritter, New York City (George A. Stohner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Washington, D.C., Judith A. Moldover, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Before: CARDAMONE, PRATT, and DANIEL M. FRIEDMAN of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation, Circuit Judges.
EEOC has moved for an order withdrawing the panel's opinion, vacating our judgment and dismissing this interlocutory appeal as moot as a result of the enactment of P.L. 98-532, which ratified the reorganization plan at issue here. See EEOC v. CBS, Inc., 743 F.2d 969 (2d Cir.1984). CBS opposes the motion, arguing essentially that the relief requested is unnecessary and imprudent in light of the concluding paragraph of our opinion which reads:
The order of the district court is reversed and the action is remanded to the district court with a direction to dismiss the complaint. The judgment to be entered on this appeal shall be stayed until December 31, 1984. If prior to that date congress shall pass legislation affecting the authority of the plaintiff to maintain this action, the district court shall then conduct such further proceedings as may be appropriate.
We deny the motion. The panel's opinion and resulting judgment contemplated possible remedial action by congress, which has now occurred. As a result of our opinion and judgment, therefore, the case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings as may be appropriate, including, if necessary, a trial on the merits of plaintiff's underlying ADEA claim.
Motion denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.E.O.C. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
...a reorganization plan. Indeed, Congress passed P.L. 98-532 precisely to respond to a similar question of EEOC authority. See EEOC v. CBS, 748 F.2d 124 (2d Cir.1984); EEOC v. CBS, 743 F.2d 969 (2d Cir.1984). Several courts have summarily held that P.L. 98-532 constitutes a full and effective......
-
E.E.O.C. v. First Citizens Bank of Billings
...to bring future Equal Pay Act action, but has retroactive authority as well on any previous action it has brought. EEOC v. CBS, 748 F.2d 124, 125 (2d Cir.1984); Barrett v. Suffolk Transportation Services, 600 F.Supp. 81, 82 (E.D.N.Y.1984); see also Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States, 300 ......
-
Graczyk v. United Steelworkers of America
...recent congressional enactments may have mooted any question concerning the EEOC's authority to implement the ADEA. See EEOC v. CBS, Inc., 748 F.2d 124 (2d Cir.1984).11 In fact, the 1971 agreement was not formally signed until April 18, 1972, but was dated, and made effective on, August 1, ......