Legal Opinion
Retired Public Employees' Ass'n v. California
District Court, N.D. California
Decided November 13, 1984No. C-77-2008 WHO, C-78-2070 WHOPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ORRICK, District Judge.
In Los Angeles Department of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978), the Supreme Court held that payment of benefits to retired public employees in amounts that vary according to the sex of the retiree constitutes impermissible sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The question in these cases 1 presented to the Court by cross-motions for summary judgment in the Retired Public Employees’ case and by plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in the Gunn…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- City of Los Angeles Department of Water v. ManhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- 29 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1473, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,064 the Officers for Justice, and Jesse J. Byrd v. The Civil Service Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, United States of America v. The City and County of San FranciscoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ernst v. RisingCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- Hutto v. South Carolina Retirement SystemCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2014
- Orchid Quay, LLC v. Suncor Bristol Bay, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2016
- Hair v. Tennessee Consolidated Retirement SystemDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1992
- Retired Public Employees' Ass'n of California Chapter 22 v. CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.