Trending
Mary Jane Arnold, by all rights, should be known nationwide. Her daughter, Victoria Arnold, told me that in July, at age 95, Mary Jane Arnold passed away.
Mary Jane Arnold of Williamsport, Pennsylvania changed history.
Mary Jane and nine other women commenced an action on March 4, 1983, against Blast Intermediate Unit 17.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Blast as teacher's aids. Blast hired a shop assistant and paid him a greater salary than that paid to Plaintiffs--almost double.
Plaintiffs alleged that the salary differential violated the Equal Pay Act as well as Title VII and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In order to secure a jury, rather than a judicial decision, Arnold and the women dropped all claims except for the Equal Pay Act.
The matter focused on how similar jobs had to be in order to violate the Equal Pay Act. The defense was that the male teacher's aids worked in the shop setting whereas the women were said to be nothing more than "welfare mothers" who worked with girls in home economics. At least that was a comment by defense counsel in his closing statement.
The matter proceeded to trial. At the close of the evidence, special verdict questions were submitted to the jury.
The jury found for the Plaintiffs and awarded them an amount of money representing the past pay differential.
Plaintiffs were arguably entitled to double damages, called liquidated damages, but the court denied that request. The circumstances surrounding that denial are a story in and of themselves, reflecting negatively on the judicial system.
Ultimately, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed an injunction to raise the salaries of the women as a result of the verdict. Initially, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission wanted nothing to do with the case.
These brave women persevered with a young lawyer through thick and thin. They were excoriated, degraded, and shown little respect. However, the jury did not agree.
The 12-person jury was made up of 10 men and 2 women. After the verdict, several of the men stated that they would never want their wives or girlfriends treated the way the Arnold Plaintiffs were treated.
From a legal point of view, what made the case significant was that it was pursued on the basis that substantial equality is required between jobs, not identical duties.
Women who work with stoves, ovens, and sewing equipment need to have the same skill set as men who work in the shop setting.
Mary Jane Arnold was a hero through all of this. Many movies have been written about remarkable people who have changed the law, but none of them are of any greater significance than the fortitude, intellect, and grit demonstrated by Mary Jane Arnold and the other Plaintiffs.
So renowned was this case that it was the subject of two Court of Appeals opinions.
The first opinion, found at 800 F.2d 1130, sustained the verdict for the Plaintiffs. The Court did not feel it was necessary to officially publish that confirmation. Nevertheless, from a legal point of view, it put an official stamp on the jury verdict in Williamsport. The second opinion, however, was the subject of a published opinion by an outraged United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
After the original verdict was sustained by the Third Circuit, Defendants refused to pay what they owed, and the trial court backed them up on that. In the second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, which sits just below the United States Supreme Court, wrote: "We believe that Blast is playing cat and mouse with the plaintiffs in an intolerable effort to obstruct the payment of a meritorious judgment." 843 F.2d 122; 1988 WL 24099.
The "cat and mouse" quote from the Court has been repeated far and wide.
How quickly we forget that individuals make a difference. Mary Jane Arnold changed the rules for all women in the United States who do substantially equal work but frequently were paid less than their male counterparts. That seemed to be an approach which thankfully is no longer the case. It is no longer acceptable because of people like Mary Jane Arnold.
There are many side stories to this case, some of which would make for a great movie plot. A young law firm had very little money to spend in connection with the expenses of this trial. One of the partners came to me, as trial counsel, and said: "Cliff, don't worry. We will do anything we have to do, borrow any amount of money necessary in order to assure that these plaintiffs get their day in court."
The judge made plain that he did not agree with the case and that he believed Plaintiffs were trying to prove an "affirmative action" claim. The judge would not listen to arguments to the contrary. "This is not an affirmative action case" Plaintiff's counsel explained. "This is an Equal Pay Act case where the skillset, risks, dangers, and ultimate goals are the same regardless of whether it is men or women involved, the shop setting or the home economics room." Nevertheless, the judge was extremely concernedbecause he had served on the first integrated ship in the United States Navy, personally commissioned by Eleanor Roosevelt. He pointed out that the captain was Black and, in his view, "totally incompetent." Whatever the reality was concerning the Navy ship, The Booker T. Washington, it had nothing to do with the Arnold case being tried before him.
Defense counsel was well funded, supported by a major Philadelphia law firm.
Ultimately, the jury showed that it did not like how the women were treated at their job or in the courtroom.
On appeal, Blast took the position that Plaintiffs won because the jury was impressed by "the dedication, patience, and caring" of the women involved. Neither the jury nor the Appellate Tribunal agreed that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict.
The appeal of Blast was to placate the Plaintiffs, pat them on the head, and indicate that the jury had no basis for its finding. They were wrong. Even the trial judge, hostile to this case, would not throw out the verdict.
Many people whom I have represented in the course of my career would not have stayed with this bronco. Few people would have remained focused and would have been able to keep her cool as Mary Jane Arnold did. The stress, the confrontation, and the anxiety caused by having to bare her soul before a jury of 12 over a course of many weeks and to sustain two appeals to the nation's second highest court was asking for more strength and conviction than most people have. Mary Jane Arnold was a trailblazer, an extremely kind and thoughtful person, and completely trusting of her young lawyer and his staff.
Mary Jane Arnold will not only rest in peace but will sit in the esteemed counsel of heavenly women who made a difference in the great United States of America.
Clifford A. Rieders is a board-certified trial advocate in Williamsport.