Novotny v. Great American Federal S. & L. Ass'n
Citation | 430 F. Supp. 227 |
Decision Date | 22 April 1977 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 76-1580. |
Parties | John R. NOVOTNY v. GREAT AMERICAN FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Stanley M. Stein, Feldstein, Bloom, Greinberg, Stein & McKee, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Eugene K. Connors, Walter G. Bleil, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.
John R. Novotny filed this Complaint against Great American Federal Savings & Loan (GAF) under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), invoking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging that GAF fired him from his position because he charged them with discrimination against female employees. GAF has moved to dismiss the Complaint, and the Motion will be granted.
John Novotny was employed by GAF in 1950 and at the time of his termination was an undesignated employee, having not been reelected as Secretary or as a Member of the Board of Directors. He contends that from January, 1966, the individual Defendants, on behalf of GAF, "embarked upon a course of conduct the effect of which was to deny the female employees equal employment opportunity . . . for promotion and advancement." He listed the following types of actions:
The female employees had expressed their dissatisfaction with the company's policy, and one of them was fired. Novotny alleges that he supported the female employees before the Board and claims a conspiracy of the individual Defendants to prevent his support of equal employment rights for women. He demands money damages from the Defendants in his Complaint and asks that they be enjoined from any further acts of discrimination and ordered to comply with applicable provisions of the law dealing with equal employment opportunity.1
The Defendants assert Novotny's lack of standing since he is not being discriminated against. Novotny counters that the Supreme Court in Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971), held that a plaintiff need not be a member of the class toward which the invidiously discriminatory animus is directed. The Defendants distinguish Richardson v. Miller, 446 F.2d 1247 (3d Cir. 1971) which allowed a nonmember to recover, stating that decision was based on the fact the plaintiff was proceeding pro se and that fact persuaded the court to be more liberal in its application of the § 1985(3) remedy. Also, the Defendants contend that the Richardson case dealt with an issue of race discrimination, and that discrimination on that basis is per se invidious, whereas the discrimination alleged to have occurred here is one based on sex, which does not enjoy the same status in the courts.
This issue has been addressed by another member of this Court in Pendrell v. Chatham College, 386 F.Supp. 341, 348 (W.D. Pa.1974),2 where Judge Hubert I. Teitelbaum said (at p. 348):
We realize that Pendrell, as a woman, was a member of the protected class. (Deft's Brief 11-12). In Judge Teitelbaum's earlier opinion in Pendrell (370 F.Supp. 494 (W.D.Pa.1974)), it was pointed out that she was terminated from her employment for "academic and extracurricular involvement in the struggles of black people and women for liberation, for basic equality, and freedom of oppression."
We believe that under the Pendrell decisions Novotny is not barred from bringing this suit under § 1958(3) simply because he is a male since he alleges suffering a sex-based discrimination.
Novotny here claims that the Complaint has described, with sufficient factual specificity, numerous acts and patterns of discrimination practiced by the corporation against its female employees since 1966, and that therefore an application of the Rackin analysis is appropriate.
We believe that Novotny has overlooked an essential element here in that he has suffered only one act of discrimination: his termination in January, 1975.3 The Complaint does list many acts done by the corporation for which female employees may possibly have a recourse, but those acts were not directed to the Plaintiff himself.
In Rackin the court rejected the defendant's contention that Rackin suffered but one act of discrimination (denial of tenure) because the facts alleged in the complaint, if true, clearly showed that she was denied, for a period of at least eight years, privileges enjoyed by the other faculty members because of her sex.
Taking Novotny's allegations in his Complaint as true,4 he has suffered but a single act of "business entity" discrimination by his termination. More is needed to sustain a claim under § 1985(3) and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be granted as to that cause of action.5
In their brief, the Defendants contest Novotny's use of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e which provides (2000e-3):
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Great American Federal Savings Loan Association v. Novotny
...could not be invoked because the directors of a single corporation could not, as a matter of law and fact, engage in a conspiracy. 430 F.Supp. 227, 230.5 Novotny appealed. After oral argument before a three-judge panel, the case was reargued before the en banc Court of Appeals for the Third......
-
Peck v. United States, 76 Civ. 983 (CES).
...discriminatory racial animus was directed. Richardson v. Miller, 446 F.2d 1247, 1249 (3d Cir. 1971); Novotny v. Great American Federal S. & L. Ass'n., 430 F.Supp. 227, 229 (W.D.Pa.1977). The individual defendants contend that even if plaintiff has stated a cause of action, they are entitled......
-
King v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co.
...district court found defamatory and libelous statements to be outside of the opposition clause. Cf. Novotny v. Great American Federal S. & L. Ass'n, 430 F.Supp. 227, 230-231 (W.D.Pa.1977) limiting Section 704(a) to protection of those participating in an administrative or judicial proceedin......
-
Johnson v. Brelje
...Co., 505 F.2d 181 (8th Cir. 1974); Coley v. M & M Mars, Inc., 461 F.Supp. 1073 (M.D.Ga.1978); Novotny v. Great American Fed. Savings & Loan Ass'n, 430 F.Supp. 227 (W.D.Pa.1977); Keddie v. Pennsylvania State University, 412 F.Supp. 1264 (M.D. Pa.1976); Jones v. Tennessee Eastman Co., 397 F.S......