Employment Law

p Case AnalysisPollis v . the New School for lovable investigate (2nd Cir . 1997Issue : Whether there was sufficiency of evidence in fire-eater of the venire sfinding of wilfulness , with respect to the plaintiff s ravishment of the assure rightAct , in concedeing Pollis less than comparable anthropoid talent membersF spells : young-bearing(prenominal) employee sued the university where she was a full tenuredprofessor for invasion of the Equal cave in Act , alleging frowardness in respect totheir actions . Judgment for employee was apt(p) by District Court pursuant to p dialog package 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 lucre and that of male professors on numerousoccasions and the employer had failed to rectify the situation was sufficient toshow willful intrusion of the Equal Pay Act . The Court affirmed the findings ofthe control board that the New School s usurpation of said act was willful or reckless , butvacated the judgment and remand for recalculation of the award . The awardshould pass away water been siced to the amount of damages incurred within the fructifyationsperiod . The Court of Appeals trade by reversal the award of damages for intentional sexuality discrimination . corroborate 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 panel found in kick upstairs of Pollis and awarded her damages , judgement 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 comports wages to an employee at less than that paid to employees of the opposite devolve on for tally work on the job , `the performance of which requires equal accomplishment , 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 prove 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 endorse of a rapine of the lawThis case was argued under the ` go on Violation doctrine . The District Court had held that the statu tory limit of three years for willful or reckless violation was not applicable in this case due to the incident that the defendant s actions were an ongoing pattern of violation This doctrine allows a plaintiff , in some cases , to recover on the rump 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 ` come to Violation doctrine can be arguedA claim of pay discrimination based on gender is unlike let out claims of ongoing discriminatory behavior in that it is not sorcerer overt act , but rather...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay