Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Company

Decision Date21 June 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-560,77-560
Citation437 U.S. 478,57 L.Ed.2d 364,98 S.Ct. 2451
PartiesJo Ann Evans GARDNER, Petitioner, v. WESTINGHOUSE BROADCASTING COMPANY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Petitioner, who had been denied employment by respondent's radio station, brought an action seeking injunctive relief against respondent on behalf of herself and other females adversely affected by respondent's alleged practice of discriminating against women. The District Court denied petitioner's motion for class certification under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 23(b). Claiming that since the relief that could be granted in favor of the class would be broader than the relief she might obtain as an individual, the denial of class certification in effect refused a substantial portion of the injunctive relief sought, petitioner immediately appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which gives courts of appeals jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders refusing injunctions, but the Court of Appeals held that it had no jurisdiction. Held: The order denying class certification was not appealable under § 1292(a)(1). Pp. 480-482.

559 F.2d 209, affirmed.

Robert N. Hackett, Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.

Leonard L. Scheinholtz, Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent.

Mr. Justice STEVENS, delivered the opinion of the Court.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the denial of a class certification could not be appealed immediately under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) 1 as an order refusing an injunction. 559 F.2d 209. Because there is a conflict among the Circuits on the question whether § 1292(a)(1) authorizes such an appeal,2 we granted certiorari. 434 U.S. 984, 98 S.Ct. 608, 54 L.Ed.2d 477. We affirm.

Petitioner unsuccessfully applied for employment as a radio talk-show host at a station owned by respondent. She then brought this civil rights action on behalf of herself and other females adversely affected by respondent's alleged practice of discriminating against women. The class she sought to represent included respondent's past, present, and future female employees; unsuccessful female applicants; females deterred by respondent's reputation from applying for employment; and females who will not in the future be considered for employment by respondent on account of their sex. Her complaint prayed for equitable relief for the entire class.3

Petitioner moved for a class certification pursuant to Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23(b).4 The District Court denied the motion on the grounds that petitioner's claim was not typical and that the case did not present questions of law or fact common to the class. She immediately appealed, invoking the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals under § 1292(a)(1).5

Petitioner argues that the relief that could be granted in favor of the class if she prevails would be broader than the relief that she may obtain as an individual. The practical effect of the denial of class certification is, therefore, to refuse a substantial portion of the injunctive relief requested in the complaint. Relying on our decision in General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co., 287 U.S. 430, 53 S.Ct. 202, 77 L.Ed. 408, petitioner then argues that this sort of effect on a request for injunctive relief establishes appealability under § 1292(a)(1). We cannot agree; indeed the argument misconceives both the scope of § 1292(a)(1) and the import of decisions such as General Electric.

The history of § 1292(a)(1), which we reviewed in Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 178-181, 75 S.Ct. 249, 250-252, 99 L.Ed. 233, need not be repeated. It is sufficient to note that the statute creates an exception from the long-established policy against piecemeal appeals, which this Court is not authorized to enlarge or extend. The exception is a narrow one and is keyed to the "need to permit litigants to effectually challenge interlocutory orders of serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence." Id., at 181, 75 S.Ct. at 252.

The order denying class certification in this case did not have any such "irreparable" effect. It could be reviewed both prior to and after final judgment; 6 it did not affect the merits of petitioner's own claim; and it did not pass on the legal sufficiency of any clai § for injunctive relief.7 This stands in sharp contrast to the order in General Electric.8 In that case the Court held that an order dismissing a counterclaim for an injunction was appealable. The order, therefore, entirely disposed of the defendant's prayer for injunctive relief; here, the order merely limits the scope of the relief that may ultimately be granted. While it may have a significant effect on the litigation, "[m]any interlocutory orders are equally important, . . . but they are not for that reason converted into injunctions." Morgantown v. Royal Insurance Co., 337 U.S. 254, 258, 69 S.Ct. 1067, 1069, 93 L.Ed. 1347.

As we stated in Switzerland Cheese Assn., Inc. v. E. Horne's Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 24, 87 S.Ct. 193, 195, 17 L.Ed.2d 23, "we approach this statute [§ 1292(a)(1)] somewhat gingerly lest a floodgate be opened that brings into the exception many pretrial orders." The exception does not embrace orders that have no direct or irreparable impact on the merits of the controversy. The order in this case, like the order in Switzerland Cheese, had no such impact; it "in no way touch[ed] on the merits of the claim but only relate[d] to pretrial procedures . . . ." Id. at 25, 87 S.Ct., at 195.9 A holding that such an order falls within § 1292(a)(1) would compromise "the integrity of the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals." 385 U.S., at 25, 87 S.Ct., at 195.

The judgment is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

1 "§ 1292. Interlocutory decisions.

"(a) The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from:

"(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court . . . ."

3 Petitioner did not file a motion for a preliminary injunction; for that reason, the issue decided in Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance, Inc., 538 F.2d 164 (CA7 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 986, 97 S.Ct. 506, 50 L.Ed.2d 598 (plaintiff's appeal from denial of class certification and denial of preliminary injunction held within appellate jurisdiction), is not before us.

4 On the same day that she filed her motion for class-action certification, petitioner also filed a motion to compel respondent to answer interrogatories concerning its employee rosters at other radio stations, owned and operated by respondent and located in other cities. The District Court did not pass on this second motion because it denied class-action certification.

5 Petitioner did not seek certification of her appeal pursuant to § 1292(b).

6 As the Court of Appeals noted, a decision on class-action status "may be conditional, subject to alteration or amendment prior to final judgment, F.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1) . . . . If, after judgment on the merits, the relief granted is deemed unsatisfactory, the question of class status is fully reviewable." 559 F.2d 209, 212; see also United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385, 393, 97 S.Ct....

To continue reading

Request your trial
173 cases
  • Doster v. Kendall
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 29 Noviembre 2022
    ...at 37 & n.23. A class-certification order, by itself, does not fall within that provision. Gardner v. Westinghouse Broad. Co. , 437 U.S. 478, 480–82, 98 S.Ct. 2451, 57 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978). Even before the Supreme Court adopted Rule 23(f), however, courts had recognized that they could review......
  • Wagner v. Taylor
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 24 Diciembre 1987
    ...Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 83-86, 101 S.Ct. 993, 996-997, 67 L.Ed.2d 59, 63-65 (1981); Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 437 U.S. 478, 480, 98 S.Ct. 2451, 2453, 57 L.Ed.2d 364, 367-368 (1978).36 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1) (1982).37 E.g., Adams v. Vance, 187 U.S.App.D.C. 41, 44, 570 F......
  • Woodard v. Sage Products, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 4 Mayo 1987
    ...the broad literal reading of section 1292(a)(1) which had created the split in the circuits. 4 4. Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 437 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2451, 57 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978) The Supreme Court again gave a restrictive reading to section 1292(a)(1) in Gardner. Gardner sought ......
  • Bishop v. Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of Iowa State Bar Ass'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 17 Agosto 1982
    ...v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 574 F.2d 982, 983 (8th Cir. 1978) (disapproved on other grounds in Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 437 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2451, 57 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978)); Valentino v. Howlett, 528 F.2d 975, 978 (7th Cir. The record relating to the class certification in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Sturm und Drang, 1953-1980.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 90 No. 3, April 2013
    • 1 Abril 2013
    ...that judges "are just hostile" to class actions); Gardner v. Westinghouse Broad. Co., 559 F.2d 209, 222 (10th Cir. 1977), aff'd, 437 U.S. 478 (1978) (complaining of Eighth Circuit's hostility to class actions); In re Franklin Nat. Bank See. Litig., 574 F.2d 662, 673 (2d Cir. 1978), on reh'g......

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