“As a consequence of the remand, the Board expanded its make whole remedy to include [persons previously excluded]. We believe that the Board’s expansion of the remedy is consistent with the Act . . . .”
How later courts described this case
- “As a consequence of the remand, the Board expanded its make whole remedy to include [persons previously excluded]. We believe that the Board’s expansion of the remedy is consistent with the Act . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WEICK, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I adhere to my dissenting opinion filed on January 28, 1977, to the panel’s decision reported in 548 F.2d 644 (6th Cir. 1977) for the reasons therein set forth and which were not remedied by the Board on the remand. I would deny enforcement of the Board’s order on the remand.