Hodgson v. Daisy Manufacturing Company, 20700
Decision Date | 13 July 1971 |
Docket Number | 71-1002.,No. 20700,20700 |
Citation | 445 F.2d 823 |
Parties | James D. HODGSON, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. DAISY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant and Cross-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Sylvia S. Ellison, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Peter G. Nash, Sol. of Labor, Bessie Margolin, Assoc. Sol., Carin Ann Clauss, Judith Bleich Kahn, Attys., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Sol., for appellee and cross-appellant.
Hugo Swan, Jr., James A. Gilker, Charles R. Garner, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellant and cross-appellee.
Before LAY, HEANEY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
The Daisy Manufacturing Company appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas finding that Daisy had violated the equal pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The opinion of the District Court is published at 317 F.Supp. 538 (1970).
Daisy contends on appeal (1) that the District Court was without jurisdiction to award back pay because of the "novel question" proviso of section 16(c) of the Act, and (2) that the District Court erred in holding that male and female personnel performed equal work within the meaning of the Act.
The United States cross-appeals, contending that the District Court erred in denying pre-judgment interest on the back pay awards.
We have previously resolved the jurisdictional issue adversely to Daisy in Hodgson v. American Can Company, 440 F.2d 916 (8th Cir. 1971), wherein we stated:
"* * * The Secretary is not burdened by the Section 16(c) jurisdictional restrictions when seeking to recover back wages under the enforcement provisions of Section 17."
We also resolved the interest issue contrary to Daisy's position in American Can, stating:
Daisy argues strenuously that American Can is not controlling here because Daisy had a good faith doubt as to its obligation to pay the men and the women the same wage rates, and because the Secretary delayed in filing and prosecuting...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Usery v. Godwin Hardware, Inc.
...¶ 32,910 (C.A. 5, 1973); Hodgson v. Wheaton Glass Co., 446 F.2d 527, 65 CCH Labor Cases ¶ 32,537 (C.A. 3, 1971); and Hodgson v. Daisy Manufacturing Co., 445 F.2d 823, 65 CCH Labor Cases ¶ 32,528 (C.A. 8, 1971); Hodgson v. Corning Glass Works, 474 F.2d 226, 70 CCH Labor Cases ¶ 32,842 (C.A. ......
-
Marshall v. Baptist Hospital, Inc.
...(8th Cir. 1971); Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 391 F.Supp. 229 (D.N.J.1970), aff'd, 446 F.2d 527 (3rd Cir. 1971); Hodgson v. Daisy Manufacturing Co., 445 F.2d 823 (8th Cir. 1971). Defendant shall compute and pay the back wages due, subject to verification by representatives of the plaintiff.......
-
Thompson v. Sawyer
...question. In Hodgson v. Daisy Manufacturing Co., 317 F.Supp. 538 (W.D.Ark.1970), aff'd in part and rev'd on other grounds in part, 445 F.2d 823 (8th Cir. 1971), the court found a violation where male gun assemblers were paid higher wages for assembling larger gun barrels with somewhat large......
-
Marshall v. JC Penney Co., Inc.
...v. Flame Coal Company, 321 F.2d 558 (6th Cir. 1963); Hodgson v. Daisy Manufacturing Co., 317 F.Supp. 538 (W.D. Ark.1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 823 (8th Cir. 1971). 15. The Court has found that the Penney System is on its face valid as a factor other than sex; however, as applied at the Mentor St......