United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald

United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald

Opinion

  [*387]   [***427]   [**2466]  MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

 Federal Rule Civ. Proc. 24 ] requires that an application to intervene in federal litigation must be "timely." In this case a motion to intervene was filed promptly after the final judgment of a District Court, for the purpose of appealing the court's earlier denial of class action certification. The question presented is whether this motion was "timely" under Rule 24.

 [***428]  Until November 7, 1968, United Airlines required its female stewardesses to remain unmarried as a condition of employment; no parallel restriction was imposed on any male employees, including male stewards and cabin flight attendants. ¹ This "no-marriage [****6]  rule" resulted in the termination of the employment of a large number of stewardesses, and in turn spawned a good deal of litigation.

One of the first challenges to this rule was brought by Mary Sprogis, who filed timely charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in August 1966, contending that her discharge constituted sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. V).  The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that United's policy was illegal, and issued a "right to sue letter." ² Sprogis then filed a timely individual action in a Federal District Court, and the court agreed that the no-marriage rule violated  [*388]  Title VII. 308 F.Supp. 959 (ND Ill.). United took an interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1292 [****7]  (b) on the issue of liability, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the finding of sex discrimination.  Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444 F.2d 1194.

While the appeal in the Sprogis case was pending, the present action was filed in the same District Court by Carole Romasanta, a United stewardess who had been discharged in 1967 because of her marriage. She, too, had filed charges with the EEOC,  [****8]  leading to a finding of cause to believe that the no-marriage rule violated Title VII and the issuance of a right-to-sue letter. Romasanta then promptly filed the present suit as a class action on behalf of herself and all other United stewardesses discharged because of the no-marriage rule. Another United stewardess was later permitted to intervene as a named plaintiff.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.