Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MUSSER v. MOUNTAIN VIEW BROADCASTING INC.

January 11, 1984

MUSSER
v.
MOUNTAIN VIEW BROADCASTING INC., d/b/a WJSO RADIO



The opinion of the court was delivered by: HULL

HULL, District Judge: --

 This is an action for equitable relief and damages for sexual discrimination in employment, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Tennessee fair employment practices law, T.C.A. § 4-21-101, et seq. The plaintiff, a female, was employed as news director by the defendant radio station from March, 1978, through January 5, 1981. She alleges that during that time she was paid a lower salary than male employees with similar or less responsible work; that unlike similarly situated male employees she was required to do receptionist duties during lunch hours; that she was discharged because of her complaints about unequal pay scales; and that subsequent to her discharge the defendant fabricated humiliating and damaging reasons to justify her discharge and failed to cooperate with her social worker when she attempted to receive food stamps. Plaintiff seeks reinstatement with back pay, injunctive relief prohibiting any further discrimination against her, actual damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

 The defendant moves the Court for an order of dismissal or in the alternative summary judgment on the grounds that the Court is without jurisdiction over the defendant since the latter is not an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (b).

 Section 2000e (b) defines the term "employer" as meaning "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. . .." The defendant contends by way of affidavit that it has never "in its history" employed the number of employees required by the statute and documents that in 1980 it did not fall within the definition. The plaintiff, however, responded by affidavit and documentation that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.