Hodgson v. Baltimore Regional Joint Board
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union (D.C. Cir. 1979)
- Tillman v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 2008)
- Rosemarie Denicola v. G. C. Murphy Company, Appellee-Cross and General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local Union 249, Appellant-Cross (3d Cir. 1977)
- Cook v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1975)
- Brennan v. Emerald Renovators, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1975)
- Brennan v. Board of Education, Jersey City, New Jersey (District Court, D. New Jersey 1974)
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
9 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 770,
20 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 697,
4 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7880, 68 Lab.Cas. P 32,711
James D. HODGSON, Secretary of Labor, United States
Department of Labor, Appellee,
v.
BALTIMORE REGIONAL JOINT BOARD, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS
OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Appellant.
No. 71-1728.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Argued May 30, 1972.
Decided June 16, 1972.
Bernard W. Rubenstein, Baltimore, Md. (Jacob J. Edelman, Bernard P. Jeweler, and Edelman, Levy, & Rubenstein, Baltimore, Md. on brief), for appellant.
Carin Ann Clauss, Asst. Sol., U. S. Department of Labor (Richard F. Schubert, Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Anastasia T. Dunau, Sylvia S. Ellison, Attys., Washington, D. C., and Louis Weiner, Regional Sol., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Senior Circuit Judge, and WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Baltimore Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO [Union] prosecutes this appeal from a judgment of the District Court imposing upon it joint and several liability with Sagner, Inc., a clothing manufacturer. The employer discriminated against certain women employees by paying them less than their male counterparts for equivalent work. Sagner finally admitted the discrimination and offered to make restitution. But at the instigation of the appellant Union and in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., the major part of the arrearage due was diverted to increase the pay of another group of employees also represented by the Union.
For reasons sufficiently indicated by the District Court, Hodgson v. Sagner, Inc., 326 F.Supp. 371 (D.Md. 1971), we agree that the court was within its general equitable powers in imposing such liability upon the Union. The judgment is therefore
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.