Court Opinion

ID: 9462623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:45:58.936869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:41.243580
License: Public Domain

ROSS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion of Judge Heaney and agree that the plaintiffs performed substantially the same services as their male predecessors. I would prefer to be *381able to give consideration to the qualifications of the male car markers as well as the duties they performed in determining the amount of back pay to be awarded. I am convinced that on a rational business basis, having this reserve of trained patrol officers who could be used for patrol purposes if needed, justified some difference in pay. Unfortunately the regulation does not agree that this is proper. 29 C.F.R. § 800.-14. It is therefore a problem in need of legislative correction rather than judicial interpretation.