Mary J. Riordan v. William L. Kempiners and Shirley Randolph

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that it is a simple task for employers to concoct plausible reasons for virtually any adverse employment action ranging from failure to hire to discharge, especially when the employee in question is not of the highest caliber
• finding that a blanket exclusion of evidence of events that occurred before a particular time was arbitrary and warranted a new trial
• explaining that male employee’s higher salary following raise at promotion was for valid nondiscriminatory reason because civil service rules entitled him to raise and his initial salary was established for nondiscriminatory reasons
• explaining that male employee’s higher salary following raise at promotion was for valid nondiscriminatory reason because civil service rules entitled him to raise and his initial salary was established for nondiscriminatory reasons
• noting that while “the work of a supervisor and of the workers she supervises is necessarily different[,]” “an employer cannot avoid the [EPA] by the simple expedient of loading extra duties onto its female employees—unless it pays them more”
• interpreting similar definition of “employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).