# Jurinko v. Edwin L. Wiegand Co.

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · April 17, 1973 · 477 F.2d 1038

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8890008

## Case

- **Full name:** Josephine JURINKO and Ida M. Seibert v. EDWIN L. WIEGAND COMPANY, a corporation and Local 1020, UAW, an unincorporated association Josephine JURINKO and Ida M. Siebert v. EDWIN L. WIEGAND COMPANY, a corporation and Local 1020, UAW, an unincorporated association
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** April 17, 1973
- **Citations:** 477 F.2d 1038; 6 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8843; 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 234; 5 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 925; 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10463
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gibbons
- **Judges:** Biggs, Gibbons
- **Cited by:** 64 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Vacated on other grounds by Edwin L. Wiegand Co. v. Jurinko, 414 U.S. 970 (1973).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8890008

## Opinion text

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I agree with the analysis of the issues in this case set forth in Judge Biggs’ opinion with one exception which in no way affects the outcome. It seems to me that the admitted policy of discrimination against married women, which antedated the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 and which never operated against married men, together with the evidence establishing that a discriminatory policy continued to operate against the appellants who are married women after the passage of the Act, sufficiently establish that these married women were discriminated against on the basis of their sex. Thus, I do not agree that we must decide the cases on a theory different from that relied on by the district court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8890008. Public record. Not legal advice.