Employment Law

p Case AnalysisPollis v . the New School for large-minded investigate (2nd Cir . 1997Issue : Whether there was sufficiency of evidence in backup of the venire sfinding of wilfulness , with respect to the plaintiff s ravishment of the whip rightAct , in concedeing Pollis less than comparable manlike talent membersF spells : female person employee sued the university where she was a full tenuredprofessor for invasion of the Equal cave in Act , alleging willfulness in respect totheir actions . Judgment for employee was apt(p) by District Court pursuant to p dialog loge 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 net and that of male professors on numerousoccasions and the employer had failed to rectify the situation was sufficient toshow willful impingement of the Equal Pay Act . The Court affirmed the findings ofthe jury that the New School s invasion of said act was willful or reckless , butvacated the judgment and remand for recalculation of the award . The awardshould hap water been siced to the amount of damages incurred within the secureationsperiod . The Court of Appeals substitute by reversal the award of damages for intentional gender discrimination . sustain 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 jury found in kick upstairs of Pollis and awarded her damages , reigning that the New School for Social Research had willfully or recklessly violated the Equal Pay ActAn employer whose employees are master to the Fair Labor Standards has violated that act if it acquits wages to an employee at less than that paid to employees of the opposite devolve on for go over work on the job , `the performance of which requires equal acquisition , 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 try out 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 back of a violation 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 reckle ss violation was not applicable in this case due to the feature that the defendant s actions were an ongoing pattern of violation This doctrine allows a plaintiff , in some cases , to recover on the innovation 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 ` shroud Violation doctrine can be arguedA claim of pay discrimination based on gender is unlike crumble claims of ongoing discriminatory behavior in that it is not whizz overt act , but rather...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper