Novotny v. Great American Federal S. & L. Ass'n, Civ. A. No. 76-1580.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
Writing for the CourtSNYDER
Citation430 F. Supp. 227
PartiesJohn R. NOVOTNY v. GREAT AMERICAN FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION et al.
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 76-1580.
Decision Date22 April 1977

430 F. Supp. 227

John R. NOVOTNY
v.
GREAT AMERICAN FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION et al.

Civ. A. No. 76-1580.

United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

April 22, 1977.


430 F. Supp. 228

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.

OPINION

SNYDER, District Judge.

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:

"(a) Promoting male employees with less experience, fewer years of service and less qualification over more qualified female employees;
(b) Providing education and training to male employees which was not provided to female employees;
(c) Making known to male employees job vacancies which were not made known to female employees;
(d) Evaluating male employees in accordance with different and subjective criteria than those applied to female employees;
(e) Catagorizing sic certain jobs as `male' or `female' and promoting in accordance with these categories;
(f) Creating an atmosphere inimical to the asperations sic of female employees by subjecting all female employees to the supervision and control sic
(g) By providing different and lesser degrees of fringe benefits to female employees than to male employees;
(h) By demoting qualified female employees and replacing them with less qualified male employees."

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

430 F. Supp. 229

NOVOTNY'S STANDING

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):

"The first question here then is whether a § 1985(3) claim must be based upon an allegation of conspiracy to discriminate because of membership in a racial or perhaps otherwise class-based group or whether an allegation of conspiracy to discriminate because of one's advocacy of the rights of such a group is sufficient. Following what I believe to be the clear inference from Judge Gibbons' expression in Phillips, I hold that discrimination because of advocacy of the rights of a racial or otherwise class-based group is sufficient. Nothing less would appear to be compatible with making `. . . actionable private conspiracies to deprive a citizen of the equal enjoyment of rights secured to all.' I do not mean by this
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Great American Federal Savings Loan Association v. Novotny, No. 78-753
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 11, 1979
    ...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, No. 76 Civ. 983 (CES).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 25, 1979
    ...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 to absolute im......
  • King v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., No. 77 C 3392.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • October 4, 1978
    ...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 proceeding under Title 6......
  • Johnson v. Brelje, No. 78 C 1704.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • November 8, 1979
    ...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.Supp. 815 (E.D.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Great American Federal Savings Loan Association v. Novotny, No. 78-753
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 11, 1979
    ...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, No. 76 Civ. 983 (CES).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 25, 1979
    ...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 to absolute im......
  • King v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., No. 77 C 3392.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • October 4, 1978
    ...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 proceeding under Title 6......
  • Johnson v. Brelje, No. 78 C 1704.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • November 8, 1979
    ...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.Supp. 815 (E.D.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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