Parker v. United States

holding that plaintiff who accepted a lower paying job because it was the best job available had mitigated damages | holding that plaintiff who accepted a lower paying job because it was the best job available had mitigated damages | noting that the Equal Pay Act applies to jobs “held in immediate succession as well as simultaneously” | holding, under the Jones Act, analogous to FELA, that an instruction was required because evidence of knowledge of dangerous conditions existing in the "line of duty" and carelessness comprised the entire defense | holding, under the Jones Act, analogous to FELA, that an instruction was required because evidence of knowledge of dangerous conditions existing in the "line of duty” and carelessness comprised the entire defense | reversing a lower court decision which ruled that a male-dominated bank management training program was bona fide | reversing a lower court decision which ruled that a male-dominated bank management training program was bona fide | primary duty of NLRB General Counsel in back pay proceedings is to show the gross back pay due each claimant | "by 'lowering their sights' and accepting what might have been the best job available, the claimants were doing all that could reasonably be expected of them by way of mitigation" | evidence of bargaining history 'not admissible to explain meaning of written contract term which is clear on its face and not ambiguous | although the court generally recognized that a company might properly inaugurate or continue a training program with resulting pay differentials, the exemption was inapplicable to the particular program since the program was discriminatory | the Hodgson court found that, even though the training program contained these elements, the program was in violation of the Act because it was coterminus with a stereotyped province called man’s work | “After a finding of ambiguity has been made, ‘[ejvidence of the surrounding circumstances and the practical construction of the parties is admissible to aid in its interpretation.’ ” | “by ‘lowering their sights’ and accepting what might have been the best job available, the claimants were doing all that could reasonably be expected of them by way of mitigation” | "Though we agree that shifting of risk is not a sine qua non to a sale, we believe that it becomes relevant in a situation like that before us.” | sex discrimination under the Equal Pay Act amendment to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) | charge which permitted jury to consider messman's knowing acceptance of slippery floor, and which did not require act of negligence other than messman's knowledgeable encounter with dangerous condition, improperly permitted defense of assumption of risk to go to jury | charge which permitted jury to consider messman’s knowing acceptance of slippery floor, and which did not require act of negligence other than messman’s knowledgeable encounter with dangerous condition, improperly permitted defense of assumption of risk to go to jury