Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roesel v. Joliet Wrought Washer Co.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT


January 7, 1980

JUDY DAVIS ROESEL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT,
v.
JOLIET WROUGHT WASHER COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 76 C 1064 Thomas R. McMillen, Judge.

Before Hon. THOMAS E. FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge

Hon. WILLIAM A. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. WILLIAM J. JAMESON, Senior Judge*fn*

Order

On petition for rehearing or for rehearing in banc the defendant-appellant Joliet Wrought Washer Company challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of comparability of the job held by the plaintiff and that held by another female employee, Ms. Agazzi.

Upon examination of the record it appears that the issue of comparability was not fully explored at trial and therefore the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of comparability. In our prior decision we stated that the duties performed by Ms. Agazzi as a Pricing Supervisor were "figuring out prices and answering telephone calls from customers...." We upheld the ruling of the district court on the basis that Ms. Agazzi's above-described duties as a Supervisor during the years the plaintiff claimed discrimination were comparable to those performed by the plaintiff.

Hoever, an examination of the record indicates that the job description of Ms. Agazzi which was before the Court related to Ms. Agazzi's job as a clerk in the Pricing Department, not as a Supervisor. The raises received by Ms. Agazzi (and which the district court considered admissions of sex discrimination) were given when Ms. Agazzi had supervisory responsibilities, not at the time she held the position of clerk.

Besides the authority to hire employees, no evidence was admitted as to the new duties the position of Supervisor included. Since the exercise of supervisory duties indicates added job responsibility and responsibility is essential to a determination of comparability, it is appropriate to reverse and remand the case for the taking of evidence and finding of fact on this issue.

The petition for rehearing is GRANTED, and our previous judgment vacated. The Clerk of this Court is directed to enter judgment reversing the judgment appealed from and remanding the cause for the taking of evidence and finding of fact on the issue of comparability, and for further proceedings according to law.

On remand, further proceedings shall be before Judge McMillen.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.