noting that the PDA “was intended to be prospective only in application”
How later courts described this case
- noting that the PDA “was intended to be prospective only in application”
- holding that the PDA "was intended to be prospective only in application”
- recognizing that the PDA intended to be applied prospectively only
- reviewing the "ultimate issue" rather than the prima facie showing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ENGEL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority here that the issues in this sex discrimination case are essentially factual and subject to the clearly erroneous rule. I disagree, however, that application of the rule compels reversal. In my opinion, the correspondence from Dr. Atherton, and the exchange of correspon *1221 dence between Dr. Wiener and the Postal Service occurring between February 10, 1978 and March 21, 1978, taken with the other testimony in the case, sufficiently supports the trial judge’s finding of discrimination. The evidence also supports his conclusion that the proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for placing plaintiff on involuntary pregnancy leave were pretextual.
I would affirm.