Opinion ID: 439951
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: NWA's Appeal

Text: 11 a. Alleging supervening Supreme Court decisions, NWA asks us to overturn i) the root determination that the purser/stewardess pay differential was based on sex, and ii) the already twice-reviewed determination that the cleaning allowance for men but not women discriminated impermissibly on the basis of sex. Discerning no clear change--indeed no change at all--in the governing law, we adhere to the law of the case on both issues. 12 b. Asserting a flaw in the determination that stewardesses and pursers performed equal work, double faults in the measurement of backpay, oversights in the delineation of the Title VII class, and error in characterizing the Equal Pay Act violations as willful, NWA urges alteration of prior dispositions on these questions. In view of the full and fair opportunity NWA had to litigate these issues in the district court and on appeal in Laffey I, we hold that the strong policy of repose, Laffey II, 642 F.2d at 585, precludes consideration of NWA's earlier rehearsed arguments and more recent afterthoughts. 13 c. As to the Title VII back-pay accrual period, we adhere to the law of the case on the nonretroactivity of that statute's current two-year limitation. However, we modify the district court's specification of a three-year period borrowed from the District of Columbia's minimum wage law or general statute of limitations. Instead, we hold that, in the unique circumstances presented here, the time frame most appropriately borrowed is Minnesota's two-year limitation on the recovery of wages ... under any federal or state law. Minn.Stat.Ann. Sec. 541.09(5) (West Supp.1982-1983). 14 d. Reviewing the district court's award of liquidated damages under the Equal Pay Act, we conclude that guidance supplied in Laffey I was properly followed and sustain the determination in all respects.