Musser v. Mountain View Broadcasting, Inc., CIV-2-82-90.
| Decision Date | 11 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV-2-82-90.,CIV-2-82-90. |
| Citation | 578 F. Supp. 229 |
| Parties | Elizabeth S. MUSSER v. MOUNTAIN VIEW BROADCASTING INC., d/b/a WJSO Radio. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Shelburne Ferguson, Jr., and Charlton R. DeVault, Jr., and D. Bruce Shine, Kingsport, Tenn., for plaintiff.
Richard W. Pectol of Richard W. Pectol & Associates, Johnson City, Tenn., for defendant.
This is an action for equitable relief and damages for sexual discrimination in employment, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Tennessee fair employment practices law, T.C.A. § 4-21-101, et seq. The plaintiff, a female, was employed as news director by the defendant radio station from March, 1978, through January 5, 1981. She alleges that during that time she was paid a lower salary than male employees with similar or less responsible work; that unlike similarly situated male employees she was required to do receptionist duties during lunch hours; that she was discharged because of her complaints about unequal pay scales; and that subsequent to her discharge the defendant fabricated humiliating and damaging reasons to justify her discharge and failed to cooperate with her social worker when she attempted to receive food stamps. Plaintiff seeks reinstatement with back pay, injunctive relief prohibiting any further discrimination against her, actual damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees.
The defendant moves the Court for an order of dismissal or in the alternative summary judgment on the grounds that the Court is without jurisdiction over the defendant since the latter is not an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
Section 2000e(b) defines the term "employer" as meaning "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year..." The defendant contends by way of affidavit that it has never "in its history" employed the number of employees required by the statute and documents that in 1980 it did not fall within the definition. The plaintiff, however, responded by affidavit and documentation that the defendant did fall within the definition of "employer" in 1981, the year in which the plaintiff was discharged by the defendant.
For purposes of § 2000e(b) "current calendar year" is the year in which the alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohen v. SUPA INC.
...Coop. Ass'n., 55 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1341, 1991 WL 80168, *1 (D.Kan.1991); Gorman, 664 F.Supp. at 213; Musser v. Mountain View Broadcasting Inc., 578 F.Supp. 229, 230 (E.D.Tenn. 1984); Hornick v. Borough of Duryea, 507 F.Supp. 1091, 1098 (M.D.Pa.1980); but see EEOC v. Garden & Assoc., Ltd.,......
-
EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School
...year. "Current calendar year" is defined as the year in which the alleged discrimination occurred. Cf. Musser v. Mountain View Broadcasting, 578 F.Supp. 229, 230 (E.D.Tenn.1984) (interpreting identical language in the Title VII context). Because Ms. Stein made the telephone call on August 1......
-
Wright v. Kosciusko Medical Clinic, Inc.
...11 FEP Cases 1325, 1327, 1975 WL 3615 (D.Minn.1975), aff'd, 566 F.2d 1178 (8th Cir.1977). See also Musser v. Mountain View Broad. Inc., 578 F.Supp. 229, 230 (E.D.Tenn.1984). Other courts following Zimmerman include Schoenbaum v. Orange Cty. Center for the Performing Arts, 677 F.Supp. 1036, ......
-
Arrigo v. Link Stop, Inc.
...period between January 1 ... and December 31 ... regardless of when the alleged violation occurred.”); Musser v. Mountain View Broad., Inc., 578 F.Supp. 229, 230 (E.D.Tenn.1984) (in Title VII case, employer could be sued for discharge in January 1981 even though it did not have necessary nu......