Opinion ID: 439951
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Foreign Flying

Text: 73 As previously indicated, NWA reargues its already rejected position that purser pay included compensation directly traceable to foreign flying and that this component of compensation should be excluded as a factor other than sex under the Equal Pay Act back-pay computations, and from the Title VII back-pay computations under the Supreme Court decisions discussed supra in section III.B.1. 74 We disagree. We find, for the reasons outlined in the preceding section, that the Supreme Court decisions in Manhart, Teamsters, and Ford Motor do not bring into question the treatment in Laffey I of the foreign flying issue, as those cases merely articulate already established principles of Title VII law. 30 NWA's other arguments on this issue are foreclosed by the law of the case, clearly set out in Laffey I, 567 F.2d at 452-53 n. 153. Unless there is supervening authority, and we have concluded that there is none, NWA must satisfy the stringent test of clear error and manifest injustice, a rigorous standard which has not been met as to the foreign flying issue. As this court held eight years ago, NWA simply failed to carry its burden on this issue the first time around. We refuse to replough this well-worn field that much deserves henceforth to lie fallow.