Cooper v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Decision Date19 October 1967
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 67-477.
Citation274 F. Supp. 781
PartiesEulalie E. COOPER, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

James F. Quaid, Jr., Baldwin & Quaid, Sidney Bach, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.

Bernard Marcus, Charles K. Reason-over, of Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, La., G. Dean Booth, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.

COMISKEY, District Judge.

Delta fired stewardess, Eulalie E. Cooper, plaintiff, on April 1, 1966 because she had gotten married on October 17, 1964. Delta's policy was to employ only single women as stewardesses and plaintiff got the job knowing this when she signed the following agreement:

Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Employment Termination in the Event of Marriage
(Stewardess)
As a further consideration for employment I hereby certify that I have never been married and that I shall terminate automatically and voluntarily my employment with Delta Air Lines prior to the event of my entry into a contract of marriage any time during the Stewardess Training Course, after successfully completing the stewardess training class and prior to the assignment of regular stewardess duties or after assignment to regular stewardess duties. I understand and further agree that my employment as a stewardess will not be continued beyond the end of the month during which my thirty-fifth (35th) birthday occurs.

Plaintiff charged Delta with discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which wrote plaintiff a statutory letter advising her to file this suit if she wanted. The letter from E.E.O.C. admitted it had not "made a determination" as to the legal validity of her case under the 1964 Civil Rights Law. The plaintiff's suit complains that Delta's policy of limiting her job to single women is an unlawful employment practice.

                 § 2000e-2. Unlawful          employment
                                 practices — Employer
                                 practices
                
"(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer —
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

Delta admits that it applies this "single woman rule" to only its stewardesses and not to any of its other employees, male or female. Delta urges, however, that its "single woman rule" is "reasonably necessary to the normal operation of its" business and comes within the legal exception of the Civil Rights Law, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e), known as a "bona fide occupational qualification";

"* * *, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire * * * employees, * * *, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business * * *,"

After numerous defense motions which were denied with reasons, this case was tried on the merits with plaintiff seeking reinstatement, back wages, and injunctive relief, all of which we deny and we dismiss the plaintiff's suit.

The plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (f), which, while we have jurisdiction under this act, the plaintiff has no remedy under it.

Congress branded as illegal almost every employment practice which discriminates against an individual because of her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But Congress did not outlaw Delta's discretion to hire only stewardesses who are single and young, 20...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • September 8, 1977
    ...404 U.S. 991, 92 S.Ct. 536, 30 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971); Gerstle v. Continental Airlines, 358 F.Supp. 545 (D.Colo.1973); Cooper v. Delta Airlines, 274 F.Supp. 781 (E.D.La.1967); Defiguiernedo v. Trans World Airlines, 322 F.Supp. 1384 (S.D.N.Y.1976); Maguire v. Trans World Airlines, 55 F.R.D. 48 (......
  • Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • July 16, 1971
    ...the district court that the no-marriage rule for stewardesses involves discrimination because of sex. Relying upon Cooper v. Delta Air Lines, 274 F.Supp. 781 (D.C.La.1967), United urges that the qualification merely distinguishes between classes of employees within the job category of stewa......
  • Stroud v. Delta Airlines, Inc., Civ. A. No. 74-5.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • April 2, 1975
    ...Lastly, defendant contends that it was entitled by principles of fundamental fairness to rely on the decision in Cooper v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 274 F.Supp. 781 (E.D.La. 1967), in maintaining its no-marriage and no-divorce policies. In opposition, plaintiff argues, as noted above, that evi......
  • Edwards v. North American Rockwell Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • August 9, 1968
    ...is free only to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Thus, in Cooper v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 274 F.Supp. 781 (E.D.La. 1967), the court dismissed the suit of a former airline stewardess who had been terminated upon her marriage, "But the abse......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Does Discrimination "because of Sex" Cover Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination? the Evolution of Title Vii
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 87-10, December 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...superseded by statute, Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e(k) (1978). [8] Cooper v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 781 (E.D. La. 1967) (airline's refusal to employ married females as stewardesses did not violate Title VII). [9] Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 4......
  • Does Discrimination "because of Sex" Cover Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination?
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 87-10, December 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...superseded by statute, Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, 42 U.S.CA. § 2000e(k) (1978). [8] Cooper v. Delta Air Lines, Lnc, 274 F.Supp. 781 (E.D. La. 1967) (airline's refusal to employ married females as stewardesses did not violate Title VII). [9] Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 411 ......
  • The Emerging Statutory Proximate Cause Doctrine
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 99, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...policy of making gender a qualification for a switchman position), rev'd, 408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969); Cooper v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 781, 781 (E.D. La. 1967) (alleging discrimination based on company policy that required women to resign upon [57]See, e.g., Stone v. Autoliv ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT