Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sobel v. Yeshiva University

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT


decided: August 20, 1986.

EDNA H. SOBEL, M.D. AND BELLA C. CLUTARIO, M.D. ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER PROFESSIONAL FACULTY MEMBERS EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENDANT YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS; EDNA H. SOBEL, M.D., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-CROSS-APPELLEE; EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR, APPELLEE,
v.
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, EPHRAIM FRIEDMAN, M.D., CHESTER EDELMAN, JR., M.D., EMANUEL GENN, HENRY L. BARNETT, M.D., LABE C. SCHEINBERG, HAROLD SCHULMAN, M.D., NEAL BRICKER, M.D., EDWARD J. HEHRE, M.D., HENRY P. LAUSON, M.D., AND ARTHUR S. ABRAMSON, M.D., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES; YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT

Appeal from a judgment on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Goettel, J.) dismissing plaintiffs' claim of pay discrimination.

Per Curiam

Author: Per Curiam

Per Curiam

In this Title VII case plaintiffs, full-time faculty members of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, appearing individually and on behalf of a class of women similarly situated, claimed that Yeshiva University discriminated against them on the basis of their sex. After a bench trial the court below concluded that plaintiffs failed to present a prima facie case of pay discrimination and, accordingly, dismissed the claim. See Sobel v. Yeshiva University, 566 F. Supp. 1166, 1168 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

After the district court issued its opinion the Supreme Court decided the case of Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 92 L. Ed. 2d 315, 106 S. Ct. 3000, 54 U.S.L.W. 4972 (1986). Because the court below did not have the benefit of the views of the Supreme Court in Bazemore, particularly with respect to the significance of pre-act discrimination and the evidentiary weight to be afforded multiple regression analysis, we remand for reconsideration and if necessary, further proceedings in light of Bazemore.

Reversed and remanded.

Disposition

Reversed and remanded.

19860820

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.