SOBEL v. YESHIVA UNIVERSITY

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Nos. 1451, 1526, Dockets 85-9019, 85-9061.

Attorney(S)

Eleanor Jackson Piel, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee Edna H. Sobel. Daniel Riesel, New York City (Mark A. Chertok, Lawrence R. Sandak, Gerald A. Bodner, Sive, Paget Riesel, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee-cross-appellant Yeshiva University. Dianna B. Johnston, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-intervenor, appellee E.E.O.C.

Judges

George Cheney Pratt
Roger Jeffrey Miner

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

EDNA H. SOBEL, M.D. AND BELLA C. CLUTARIO, M.D. ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER PROFESSIONAL FACULTY MEMBERS EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENDANT YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS, EDNA H. SOBEL, M.D., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-CROSS-APPELLEE, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR, APPELLEE, v. YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, EPHRAIM FRIEDMAN, M.D., CHESTER EDELMAN, JR., M.D., EMANUEL GENN, HENRY L. BARNETT, M.D., LABE C. SCHEINBERG, HAROLD SCHULMAN, M.D., NEAL BRICKER, M.D., EDWARD J. HEHRE, M.D., HENRY P. LAUSON, M.D., AND ARTHUR S. ABRAMSON, M.D., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT.

PER CURIAM:

In this Title VII case plaintiffs, full-time faculty members of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, appearing individually and on behalf of a class of women similarly situated, claimed that Yeshiva University discriminated against them on the basis of their sex. After a bench trial the court below concluded that plaintiffs failed to present a prima facie case of pay discrimination and, accordingly, dismissed the claim. See Sobel v. Yeshiva University, 566 F.Supp. 1166, 1168 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

After the district court issued its opinion the Supreme Court decided the case of Bazemore v. Friday, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 3000, 92 L.Ed.2d 315(1986). Because the court below did not have the benefit of the views of the Supreme Court in Bazemore, particularly with respect to the significance of pre-act discrimination and the evidentiary weight to be afforded multiple regression analysis, we remand for reconsideration and if necessary, further proceedings in light of Bazemore.

Reversed and remanded.

Comments