Joanne M. HEAGNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellee

Good Law
642 F.2d 1157·25 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 31,685·26 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 438·1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18989
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 23, 198178-3292California10,368 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Boochever, J.

This is a sex discrimination case brought under Title VII of the. Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Congress made the provisions of Title VII applicable to state and local governmental entities such as the University of Washington by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Pub.L. No. 92-261, § 2 (1), 86 Stat. 103 , effective March 24, 1972. Heagney alleges that the University paid her an unfairly low *1159 salary because of her sex, and is seeking damages for the period subsequent to March 24, 1972. She seeks the difference between her estimate of a nondiscriminatory salary and her actual salary from March 24,1972 until March 15,1973, when she left the University. Heagney also claims that she should be awarded the full value of a nondiscriminatory salary for the period since her resignation because she was “constructively discharged” from her job. Finally, she requests reinstatement at the University.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated her complaint and attempted to reach a settlement with the University. These efforts failed and the commission granted Heagney a “Notice of Right to Sue.” A magistrate tried the case in 1977, and issued…

concurrence Opinion

Van Dusen, J.

concurring:

Recognizing that the panel is bound by Gunther v. County of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir. 1979), rehearing denied, 623 F.2d 1317 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 352 , 66 L.Ed.2d 213 (1980). I concur in the judgment of the court but note my disagreement with the statutory construction in Gunther as stated in my dissenting opinion in International U. of Elec. v. Westinghouse Elec., 631 F.2d 1094 , 1108 ff. (3d Cir. 1980), petitions for cert. filed, 49 U.S.L.W. 3410 (U.S. Nov. 14, 1980) (No. 80-781), 49 U.S.L.W. 3456 (U.S. Dec. 11, 1980) (No. 80-944).

Opinion

642 F.2d 1157 26 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 438 , 25 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,685 , 7 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1713 Joanne M. HEAGNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellee. No. 78-3292. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 1980. Decided March 23, 1981. Sidney J. Strong, Halverson, Strong, Moen & Chemnick, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellant. Elsa Kircher Cole, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Before VAN DUSEN, * Senior Circuit Judge, and ANDERSON and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges. BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge: 1 This is a sex discrimination case brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Congress made the provisions of Title VII applicable to state and local governmental entities such as the University of Washington by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Pub.L. No. 92-261, § 2 (1), 86 Stat. 103 , effective March 24, 1972. Heagney alleges that the University paid her an unfairly low salary because of her sex, and is seeking damages for the period subsequent to March 24,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.