Citation network
County of Washington Vs. Gunther
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 08, 1981
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 161 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court County of Washington v. GuntherSearch
-
U.S. 161 (1981) County of Washington v. GuntherSearch
-
Petitioners argue that this construction of the Bennett Amendment would render it superfluous. See United States v. MenscheSearch
-
Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
of Title VII -- the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- do not provide much guidance in this case. Cf. Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
Harrington v. PicadillySearch
-
for discrimination. Moreover, to cite an example arising from a recent case, Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. ManhartSearch
-
Franks v. BowmanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Co., 424 U. S. 747 , 424 U. S. 763 (1976). As we said in Los Angeles Dept. of Water Power v. ManhartSearch
-
e)(1), Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
Respondents thus distinguish Lemons v. CitySearch
-
decide whether respondents have stated a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII, cf. Christensen v. IowaSearch
-
The legislative history of the Equal Pay Act was examined by this Court in Corning Glass Works v. BrennanSearch
-
We are normally hesitant to attach much weight to comments made after the passage of legislation. See Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
Radzanower v. ToucheSearch
-
Ross & Co., 426 U. S. 148 , 426 U. S. 153 (1976), citing Morton v. MancariSearch
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
be permitted absent some clear statement by Congress that such was intended by the later statute. Similarly, in Train v. ColoradoSearch
-
with virtually no consideration of the specific problem of sex-based wage discrimination. See General Electric Co. v. GilbertSearch
-
was still fresh in the administrator's mind, further buttresses petitioners' interpretation of the Amendment. Udall v. TallmanSearch
-
General Electric Co v. GilbertSearch
-
National Woodwork Manufacturers Assn. v. NLRBSearch
-
h), is mere surplusage. United States v. MenascheSearch
-
It is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute,' Montclair v. RamsdellSearch
-
be admissible in a suit under that Act. Overt discrimination does not go unremedied by the Equal Pay Act. See Bourque v. PowellSearch
-
Peltier v. CitySearch
-
International Union of Electrical Workers v. WestinghouseSearch
-
U. S. 193 , 443 U. S. 206 (1979). See Mohasco Corp. v. SilverSearch
-
U. S. 180 452 U. S. 181 . Indeed, the Court relates, without criticism, respondents' contention that Lemons v. CitySearch
-
value in the community. See also Christensen v. IowaSearch
-
their wages to the employees in the physical plant). Given that implied repeals of legislation are disfavored, TVA v. HillSearch
-
De Sylva v. BallentineSearch
-
FEA v. AlgonquinSearch
-
Schwegmann Brothers v. CalvertSearch
-
makes a clarifying statement which is not inconsistent with the prior ambiguous legislative history. See Galvan v. PressSearch
-
U. S. 63 , 432 U. S. 76 , n. 11 (1977). See General Electric Co. v. GilbertSearch
-
Cabell v. MarkhamSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court County of Washington v. GuntherSearch
-
See United States v. MenscheSearch
-
Cf. Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. ManhartSearch
-
Lemons v. CitySearch
-
Christensen v. IowaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial