U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1972

Hodgson v. Baltimore Regional Joint Board

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 16, 1972

462 F.2d 180; 9 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 770 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

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 ap-pellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision. The 2 that cite it most often are listed here.

Tuma v. American Can Company (District Court, D. New Jersey 1973)
Hodgson v. Baltimore Regional Joint Board (4th Cir. 1972)

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:

The Baltimore Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Amer*181ica, 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. Sag-ner 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. § 201 et seq.t 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.