U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1986

Sobel v. Yeshiva University

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided August 20, 1986

797 F.2d 1478; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 28929; 41 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 36,443; 41 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1003 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Eleanor Jackson Piel, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee Edna H. Sobel., Daniel Riesel, New York City (Mark A. Chertok, Lawrence R. Sandak, Gerald A. Bodner, Sive, Paget & Riesel, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appelleecross-appellant Yeshiva University., Dianna B. Johnston, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-intervenor, appellee E.E.O.C.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Sobel v. Yeshiva University (2d Cir. 1988)
Sobel v. Yeshiva University (2d Cir. 1988)
Sobel v. Yeshiva University (2d Cir. 1986)
Florida v. Long (Supreme Court of the United States 1988)
Sobel v. Yeshiva University (District Court, S.D. New York 1987)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 3000, 92 L.Ed.2d 315(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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.