Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bohm v. L.B. Hartz Wholesale Corp.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided July 9, 1985No. C8-84-1891Published

1DissentCrippen, Judge

Our review of this case leads me to several conclusions not shared by the majority of the panel, prompting this dissenting opinion, respectfully submitted.

I. PRELIMINARY.

There are no disagreements of the panel on several preliminary observations:

A. Equal Work Findings.

Appellant Treva Bohm failed to prove that her employer, respondent Hartz Wholesale, paid wages to her that were unequal to those paid to men who did equal work. Equal pay for equal work is required by the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), and relief for a violation of the act can be obtained in a claim of sex…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. County of Washington v. GuntherSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API