Hailes v. United Air Lines
| Citation | 464 F.2d 1006 |
| Decision Date | 19 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2860.,71-2860. |
| Parties | Clarence H. HAILES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED AIR LINES, Defendant-Appellee, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor-Amicus Curiae. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Charles H. White, Field Atty., E.E.O. C., New Orleans, La., David L. McComb, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Burke, Toler & Sarpy, Leon Sarpy, David McComb, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and RIVES and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant, Clarence Hailes, filed this Title VII lawsuit (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.) alleging sex discrimination on the part of United Air Lines (United) in placing a newspaper advertisement for stewardesses under the "Help Wanted—Females" column. Although the facts of this case are definite and can be simply stated, the legal result is a novel one in this Circuit.1
On November 25, 1967, United Air Lines placed the above mentioned advertisement in a New Orleans newspaper, but placed no corresponding advertisement under the "Help Wanted—Male" column. Hailes read this advertisement and subsequently filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Hailes never applied for the job of stewardess (or cabin attendant), nor did he communicate in any way with United. By letter dated March 3, 1971, the EEOC advised Hailes that conciliation efforts had failed and that he had 30 days in which to file a civil action. Hailes filed this action on March 31, 1971, charging United with violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3(b) (1970).2 This appeal eventuates from the district court's dismissal without written opinion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
The first question which must be answered is whether Hailes is an "aggrieved" person under the Act. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e). In the context of this case, the types of advertisement sought to be proscribed by this subsection are those, which by their expression of preference for one sex, effectively inhibit members of the opposite sex from seeking employment with the company inserting the advertisement. United takes the position that since Hailes did not apply for employment he cannot be aggrieved. But this position requires too much. The very appearance at an employer's offices of one who had read the discriminatory ad but nevertheless continued to seek the job, would demonstrate that the reader was not deterred by this unlawful practice and therefore not aggrieved. Thus, if we were to hold that Hailes cannot challenge this advertisement, then nobody could ever complain of this practice which Congress has so directly proscribed. However, we refuse to rule that a mere casual reader of an advertisement that violates this section may bring suit. Cf. Jordan v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 442 F.2d 78, 80 (8th Cir. 1971). To be aggrieved under this subsection a person must be able to demonstrate that he has a real, present interest in the type of employment advertised. In addition, that person must be able to show he was effectively deterred by the improper ad from applying for such employment. Hailes' pleadings are facially sufficient to demonstrate his compliance with these requirements according to the complaint, he had (previously) read a similar advertisement by another airline, and when he applied for the position, he was turned away because of his sex. Thus, he alleges, he reasonably believed that any job application to United would be similarly futile. For these same reasons, we find no merit in United's contention that these facts present no "case or controversy" within the court's constitutional jurisdiction. We hold that, liberally construed as they must be, Hailes' allegations were sufficient to state a justiciable claim. Cook & Nichol, Inc. v. Plimsoll Club, 451 F.2d 505 (5th Cir. 1971).
If the district court's dismissal was based on the conclusion that United's advertisement did not violate this subsection, it is equally erroneous. Despite the fact that the ad states that United is an Equal Opportunity Employer, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fagan v. National Cash Register Company
...help, exclusion of opportunity for one sex created unacceptable discrimination against the other, the court found in Hailes v. United Air Lines (5 Cir.1972), 464 F.2d 1006. Sex differentials in opportunities for earning overtime pay engaged the court in Hays v. Potlatch Forests, Inc. (8 Cir......
-
Pittsburgh Press Company v. Pittsburgh Commission On Human Relations 8212 419
...recognition that the two are connected is supported by evidence in the present record. See App. 236a—239a. See also Hailes v. United Air Lines, 464 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CA5 1972). The Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex of the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reflect a si......
-
Peltier v. City of Fargo
...argument. The following cases illustrate how specifications of employment discrimination can and do vary. (a) Hailes v. United States Air Lines, 464 F.2d 1006, 1009 (5th Cir. 1972). In that case, the plaintiff, a male, charged sex discrimination in the hiring of stewardesses and flight atte......
-
Gerdom v. Continental Airlines, Inc.
...World Airways, Inc., 442 F.2d 385 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 950, 92 S.Ct. 275, 30 L.Ed.2d 267 (1971); Hailes v. United Airlines, 464 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir.1972); Decision No. 70-37, EEOC Dec. (CCH 1973) p 6051 (1969); Decision No. 70-89, EEOC Dec. (CCH 1973) p 6063 (1969). It does not......
-
Sex Discrimination
...on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973); Capaci v. Katz & Besthoff, Inc., 711 F.2d 647 (5th Cir. 1983); Hailes v. United Air Lines, 464 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1972). An individual woman might be qualified for this job, just as an individual man may be The woman who is able to do the job and wa......
-
The Hiring Process
...by the general population to mean the employer’s apparent preference for members of one sex is lawful. See Hailes v. United Airlines , 464 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1972) (finding advertisement for “stewardesses” placed under a “help wanted/female” newspaper column violated Title VII, and this vi......
-
Sex Discrimination
...on Human Relations , 413 U.S. 376 (1973); Capaci v. Katz & Besthoff, Inc. , 711 F.2d 647 (5th Cir. 1983); Hailes v. United Air Lines , 464 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1972). An individual woman might be qualified for this job, just as an individual man may be unqualified. The woman who is able to d......
-
The Hiring Process
...by the general population to mean the employer’s apparent preference for members of one sex is lawful. See Hailes v. United Airlines , 464 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1972) (finding advertisement for “stewardesses” placed under a “help wanted/female” newspaper column violated Title VII, and this vi......