E.E.O.C. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 78-1268
| Decision Date | 10 August 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1268,78-1268 |
| Parties | 18 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 35, 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8559 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Abner W. Sibal, Gen. Counsel, Vella M. Fink, Atty., Joseph T. Eddins, Jr., Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Beatrice Rosenberg, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellant.
Sidney F. Davis, Law Dept., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Seward & Kissel, William H. Boice, J. Stanley Hawkins, Susan Q. Downer, Legal Dept., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before MORGAN, CLARK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges:
The plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), appeals a final judgment in this Title VII 1 suit entered under Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., in favor of the defendant, Delta Air Lines, Inc. Under the authority of Stroud v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 544 F.2d 892 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 844, 98 S.Ct. 146, 54 L.Ed.2d 110 (1977), the district court dismissed those portions of the complaint which challenged Delta's now-abandoned policy forbidding the employment of married women as flight attendants. We affirm.
The parties do not dispute the basic facts relevant to this appeal. Before 1967, Delta's policy required all flight attendants to be single and required any flight attendant who married to resign. Delta first hired married women as flight attendants in March 1971 and first hired male flight attendants in December 1972. In count 7(c) of its complaint, the EEOC charged that Delta violated Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a) by "failing and refusing to hire females on account of marriage because of their sex." In his order dismissing this portion of the complaint, the district court judge, relying on Stroud, held that the EEOC could not show sexual discrimination violating Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII because females had not been disadvantaged with respect to males; in fact, Delta neither hired nor employed males as flight attendants during the time in which Delta's marriage policy was in effect. On the present appeal, the EEOC challenges alternatively the relevancy and the wisdom of Stroud.
Because it goes to our jurisdiction to proceed we must initially confront a problem with the text of the district court's order. Under Rule 54(b), the district court may direct the entry of final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all the claims advanced "only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment." In the case at bar, the district judge quoted the relevant portion of Rule 54(b), but, instead of making the rule-required determination and direction merely stated: "(a)ccordingly, the Court expressly directs the entry of final judgment of the Court's order of June 30, 1977, dismissing count 7(c)." Although the order does not literally track the requirements of the rule, the district court's wording is sufficiently clear to permit us to be sure the required determination and direction was intended. Cf. Huckeby v. Frozen Food Express, Inc., 555 F.2d 542, 545-46 (5th Cir. 1977).
The EEOC contends that Stroud dealt only with discrimination under Section 703(a)(1), while in the case at bar discrimination was shown under Section 703(a)(2). Delta argues that the EEOC failed to raise this statutory question below, and is barred from raising it on appeal. While the district court's order described the action as one for violation of Section 703(a)(1), the EEOC's complaint alleged discrimination generally under Section 703(a). We find that this question is properly before us.
Stating the EEOC's argument in its most favorable light, the EEOC contends that Delta's "no marriage" rule imposed upon a single-sex employee group...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v. Chicago Park Dist.
...Meat Cutters & Butchers v. Thompson Farms Co., 642 F.2d 1065, 1072-73 (7th Cir.1981); accord Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 578 F.2d 115, 116 (5th Cir.1978). Plaintiffs' prejudice, if any, stems from their choice not to appeal the September 23 order and not fr......
-
Kelly v. Lee's Old Fashioned Hamburgers, Inc. (Lee's Old Fashioned Hamburgers of New Orleans, Inc.)
...the order appealable. See Crowley Maritime Corp. v. Panama Canal Comm'n, 849 F.2d 951, 953 (5th Cir.1988); EEOC v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 578 F.2d 115, 116 (5th Cir.1978). In Crowley, the district court dismissed appellant Rolstad's intervention but did not dispose of other claims against o......
-
Chevis v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
...sufficient 54(b) certification despite the district court's failure to “expressly include the magical language”); EEOC v. Delta Air Lines, 578 F.2d 115, 116 (5th Cir.1978) (concluding, “although the order does not literally track the requirements of the rule, the district court's wording is......
-
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY v. Delta Air Lines, Civ. A. No. 76-906.
...an interim appeal in which this court's dismissal of one count of the original complaint was affirmed. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 578 F.2d 115 (1978). In 1978, plaintiff amended the complaint to allege that, with respect to flight attendants, Delta viol......
-
Sex discrimination
...industry has abolished its no-marriage rule and increased its hiring of male flight attendants. See EEOC v. Delta Air Lines, Inc ., 578 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1978). Courts also have struck down employer rules which impose extra burdens on married women, as opposed to married men and single men......
-
Sex Discrimination
...airline industry has abolished its no-marriage rule and increased its hiring of male flight attendants. See EEOC v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 578 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. Courts also have struck down employer rules which impose extra burdens on married women, as opposed to married men and single men......
-
Sex Discrimination
...industry has abolished its no-marriage rule and increased its hiring of male flight attendants. See EEOC v. Delta Air Lines, Inc ., 578 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1978). Courts also have struck down employer rules which impose extra burdens on married women, as opposed to married men and single men......
-
Sex Discrimination
...airline industry has abolished its no-marriage rule and increased its hiring of male light attendants. See EEOC v. Delta Air Lines, Inc ., 578 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1978). Courts also have struck down employer rules which impose extra burdens on married women, as opposed to married men and sin......