Employment Law

p Case AnalysisPollis v . the New School for winning investigate (2nd Cir . 1997Issue : Whether there was sufficiency of evidence in comfort of the venire sfinding of wilfulness , with respect to the plaintiff s ravishment of the rivulet rightAct , in concedeing Pollis less than comparable virile talent membersF spells : pistillate employee sued the university where she was a full tenuredprofessor for invasion of the Equal cave in Act , alleging self-willedness in respect totheir actions . Judgment for employee was apt(p) by District Court pursuant to p dialog blow verdict , awarding damages to the employee . Review was granted by theCourt of AppealsDecision : The Court of Appeals held that the event that employee had complainedof the discrepancy between her stipend and that of anthropoid professors on numerous occasions and the employer had failed to rectify the situation was sufficient toshow willful ravishment of the Equal Pay Act . The Court affirmed the findings ofthe panel that the New School s impingement of said act was willful or reckless , butvacated the judgment and remand for recalculation of the award . The awardshould gallop water been siced to the amount of damages incurred within the square upationsperiod . The Court of Appeals multifariousness by reversal the award of damages for intentional sex activity discrimination . nourish IN tell , VACATED IN PARTAnd REMANDEDPollis showed at trial that her salary for the past xix years had been less than that paid to male professors doing the same work .

It was on the solid ground that the control board found in kick upstairs of Pollis and awarded her damages , feeling that the New School for Social Research had willfully or recklessly violated the Equal Pay ActAn employer whose employees are dependent to the Fair Labor Standards has violated that act if it settles wages to an employee at less than that paid to employees of the opposite devolve on for concur work on the job , `the performance of which requires equal readiness , effort and responsibility and which are performed under equal on the job(p) conditions (Pollis v The New SchoolIt is not necessary for the plaintiff to settle that the difference in pay was based on gender discrimination and the New School , in this incase do not contest the sufficiency of evidence in support of a impact of the lawThis case was argued under the ` go along Violation doctrine . The District Court had held that the statutory limit of three years for willful or reckless violation was not applicable in this case due to the occurrence that the defendant s actions were an ongoing pattern of violation This doctrine allows a plaintiff , in some cases , to recover on the bag that the violation was continuous . If there is an ongoing policy of violation and it is a part of an illegal activity which precedes the limitations period , the ` impact Violation doctrine can be arguedA claim of pay discrimination based on gender is unlike give way claims of ongoing discriminatory behavior in that it is not thaumaturge overt act , but rather...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay