IN RE: Braniff Airways, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation

ee era nn A PW SAME ESN,
EY | Case MDL No. 226 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 *Page1 of3 = =: | 5
or SE 798 + °°. . 411 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT : . = ER
Tae. districts other than the Northern District claims of discriminatory discharges relat- iL‘ Co : of Georgia to\that district for Joordinat- ing to named plaintiffs only, transter MNFn. A ‘ed or fonsolidated pretrial prpceedings would not necessarily serve convenience N
oe with the actioff pending there dnd listed of parties and witnesses or promote just CaRt Ro . on Schddule A’ e, and the sanje hereby and efficient conduct of litigation. - PYi oN is, DENIED. : Motion for transfer denied. DE
NE SCHEDULE A oFSa x Co y | Southera\ District of Florida oo LB
Ey HR. Maureen fox v. Delta Ar Lines, CivilActi Courts ¢=277.2 : xEo Inc. ! No.75-1¢39-Civ.-CA Where only one of. the four actions cELh Northern District of Georgia against common employer and various OE
Saete : Equal Erflployment Opadytunity CivilActi local and international unions centered 3SCH Commissign v. Delta AirjLines, No. 75-4d4-A on systemwide issues regarding collective E3AA fre. | . bargaining contract while the other ac- 3MEN : Southern DistrictofTexas ‘tions chiefly involved allegations of dis- :a - Equal Er loyment Oppo unity al peti 1s. criminatory discharges of named plain-AST . Inc. i oT tiffs only, consolidated or coordinated ESSTR Lymn T. auzy, et al. v. Dplta CivilActiol pretrial proceedings would not necessari- - §Air Lines, fc. i No. 74-H4o18 ly serve the overall convenience of par- 2
SCH : A ties and witnesses or promote the just 2SORE - and efficient conduct of litigation and ia : ( FaTR motion for transfer was denied; an addi- &EES : Co NG Wy ~ tional ground for denial was that con- Eee Se siderable discovery had been accom-- = §EE plished in one action and trial date had : &Bre~ Se been set in another. Civil Rights Act of BE
el )fo oo 1964, § 701 et seq. as amended 42 = |	anal . : USCA. § 2000e et seq.; 42 US.CA. :
SE In re BRANIFF AIRWAYS, INC. § 1981; 28 US.C.A. § 1407 ie
Ed "EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES 5 oo SEE,
SRE ©. ~~ LITIGATION. Before ALFRED P. MURRAH*jd 3 | No. 28. Chairman, and JOHN MINOR WISDOM.EER a district, EDWARD WEINFELD*, EDWIN A. |fa E Judicial Panel of Multidistrict ROBSON, WILLIAM BECKER, JO- = ©
a - BRE SHON. SEPH S.’LORD, II, and STANLEY A. :iEa . "March 1,19%. WEIGEL, Judges of the Pagel Co =
MRE SE Co . OPINION AND ORDER . -SASS Motion was made for consolidated or } oe : -HaeEo coordinated pretrial proceedings in con- PER CURIAM. EE :
EI. nection with four actions - brought This litigation consists of four actions !MRE against common employer and various in three districts: two in the Western §rieEc unions dealing with claims of employ- District of Texas, one in the Northern
FN ment discrimination. The Judicial Panel District of Texas and one in the Western
Fae on Multidistrict Litigation held that District of Missouri. Braniff Airways,EO where it appeared that only one action Inc. is the sole defendant in the Mitchell =
Xs involved systemwide collective bargain- action in Western Missouri and, togethera ing contract provisions relating to senior- with various local and international un-
Saint Ed ity and job assignments, while the other ions,! is also a defendant in all other :EET. © actions appeared .to involve chiefly actions in the litigation. ;
iHy EN *Judges Murrah and Weinfeld were unable to I. The High action in Western Texas includes {ER attend the Panel hearing and, therefore, took the broadest array of additional defendants: iig) =, : no part in the consideration or decision of this (1) The International Brotherhood of Machin-
Ba yy o matter. - ists & Aerospace Workers (IAM); (2) District ' ]
SEAT ST TY Se ThA i Readan bs A gl LeREE aa eT ee ol TT £3 i i REN ’ 3 E

a Case MDL No. 226.Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 20f 3: LL EEE
. IN RE BRANIFF AIRWAYS, INC. EMP. PRACTICES LIT. ~~ 799 SE EES oo . Citeas411 F.Supp. 798 (1976) . . ’ od : . Sa
C All plaintiffs allege that the defend- thislitigationtotheNorthernDistrictof SRE{" ants named in their respective actions = Texas for coordinated or consolidated RE| engaged in discriminatory employment pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 ET
| practices in violation of Title VII of the U.S.C. § 1407. Plaintiffs in Mitchell, ScI Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. Forte and High oppose the motion, as 2 CLIT
' § 1981. For example, plaintiff Forte in does the EEOC, plaintiff-intervenor in REE
his action in the Western District of High. Alternatively, the High plaintiffs SIR: | Texas claims that he was illegally dis- ask the Panel to transfer this litigation SEES
charged from his employment. with to the Western District of Texas. We BE RAE~ Braniff because of his race. This conclu- find that the requested transfer would : a. oo
| sory allegation is based on Forte's claim not necessarily serve the overall conve- RE BERthat Braniff, together with the union de- nience of the parties and witnesses or or SEE
. fendants in that action, limited blacks to promote the just and efficient conduct of SE| lower paying jobs; that they refused to the litigation and, accordingly, we deny JEN
| permit transfer from lower paying to the motion. . EE| higher paying positions, such as Custom- In our recent opinion in In re. Ryder E a 3oer Service Agent; that he was discour- Truck Lines, Inc. Employment Practices : i
| aged from applying for such a position Litigation, 405 F.Supp. 308 (Jud.Pan.Mult. : x:| during his employment “with Braniff; Lit.1975), we analyzed two of our prior Se
and that he was discharged from his em- decisions in employment practices litiga- rr
ployment because he filed a discrimina- tion: In reRoadwayExpressEmployment EE
tion charge with the Equal Employment Practices Litigation, 384 F.Supp. 612 (Jud. cr
Opportunity Commission. Plaintiffs in Pan.Mult.Lit.1974) (transfer ordered) and BEEthe Mitchell and Lamar actions likewise In re Trucking Industry Employment Rs
allege that specific discriminatory acts Practices Litigation, 384 F.Supp. 614 (Jud. SE
| on the part of the various defendants PanMult.Lit.1974) (transfer denied). As en
Ye in the termination of their em- we there observed, the crucial factor fa- 7 SER	Pr “ment by Braniff. - voring transfer in Roadway Express was | RENOThe High action in the Western Dis- the similarity of the class allegations in Co fotrict of Texas, unlike the other three the complaints and our desire to ensure j Ter
A actions in this litigation, was brought as that the possibility of inconsistent class aEEESSREREEE class action by ten black named plain- determinations was eliminated. In re Eo
tiffs, each of whom is presently em- Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. Employment goRA
ployed by Braniff and has been a mem- Practices Litigation, supra at 309. See asber in good standing of the IAM and/or also In re National Airlines, Inc. Mater- oo AERIAT
IBT unions. Indeed, that action has al- nity Leave Practices and Flight Attend- SEE
ready been certified as a class action on ant Weight Program Litigation, 399 AIEEE:behalf of all Braniff’s black employees F.Supp. 1405, 1407 (Jud.PanMult.Lit. : ees
who are employed in positions covered 1975); In re Eastern Airlines, Inc. Flight SERIE
by the IAM and IBT unions and all Attendant Weight Program Litigation, ed
| black and Spanish-surnamed applicants 391 F.Supp. 763, 764 (Jud Pan.Mult.Lit. } i ifor employment in those positions. 1975). Our denial of transfer in Truck- po| Moreover, the Equal Employment Oppor- ing Industry, we noted, was predicated SES
tunity Commission has intervened as a on the absence of such competing re- ' ENplaintiff in High. quests for class determinations and, inter Be ei’ alia, the involvement primarily of specif- EE
This matter is before the Panel on ic local acts of alleged discrimination in Re
Braniff's motion, in which all the IBT two of the three actions there before us, : Eo
defendants join, to transfer all actions in in contrast to broader issues involved in Si
146, IAM; (3) Lodge 2210, IAM; (4) The Inter- includes these same IBT defendants as well as 2aSs
| national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- Local 968, IBT. The sole additional defendant Sep	feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America in the Lamar action in Northern Texas is Local He
i (IBT); (5) Airline Division, IBT; and (6) Local 19, IBT. ’ FH19, IBT. The Forte action in Western Texas pd
© Ta TE EneeRR ST EeeR Te EERSiTREE EE I TE TE :
ae HT Se EA weLt De	The LE20peonyELerSR RTBel	ih eeesEEeTFT dk aga

=% 800 411 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT. = ~~ «co. © CE
Es oo | ES nL BE
ros the third action. In re Ryder Truck set a cutoff date for discovery in this Er
pe eg Lines, Inc. Employment Practices Litiga- action. It also appears that a trial date = :
SE tion, supra at 309. : has been set-by the court in Lamar. we
nn= oo Movants insist that transfer is appro- Thus, the present posture of these two ~~ -
RE priate here because each of these actions actions provides an additional reason oo
or raises factual questions involving the why transfer under Section 1407 of the oO
Ci system-wide, Braniff-IBT contract and 2ctions now before us would neither BEE
Re its provisions for seniority and job as- Serve the convenience of the parties and Lh
re signm ats. As we read the complaints witnesses nor promote the just and effi- B
~ a in these actions, however, only the High cient conduct of the overall litigation. :
Tr action centers on such system-wide is- See In re Grand Funk Railroad Trade-
Pres sues. The three remaining actions, on Mark Litigation, 871 F.Supp. 1084, 1085 E
a the other hand, appear to involve chiefly (Jud.P,an.Mult.Lit.1974). - -.- SLI ;
Ny allegations of discriminatory discharges It is therefore ordered that the motion :
i relating to the named plaintiffs only. to transfer the actions listed on the fol- 4
SER Although there may well be some com- lowing Schedule A be, and the same. :
a. mon areas of factual inquiry among all hereby is, denied. Co
SEO : actions, the dichotomy between the Co - ES SE
gS broadness of High and the primarily EE IEE os
hsof local focus of the other actions, coupled SCHEDULE A : :RIE with the absence of competing requests Western District of Texas ~~ i:
1 EE for class certifications, brings this litiga- Frederick H. High, et al. v. Braniff Civil Action : .
Ne tion within the ambit of our decision in os -a . - _ oo S7a-Ch-208 :	SEN . osep . Forte v. Brani ir- ivil Action .Ch Trucking Industry and, as a result, leads ways, Inc, at al. - No. SA75.-CA-204 :ER us to the conclusion that Section 1407 a. ne
BP. NC . . Northern District of Texas : YBAN Y) treatment is unwarranted. ) . e Co pea i . Louis Lamar v. Braniff Airways, Civil Action ;
= Furthermore, we are advised that con- Inc. et al. . No.CA3-74-915-F =
i. siderable discovery as well as other pre- Western Districtof Missouri . -
OE trial proceedings have been accomplished samyer Mitchell v. Braniff Inter- Civil Action CE
Tr in High and that, indeed, the court has - national . 1 No.75Cva071 :
: A ys T- a a > TT ey EUS PN BH PR On Fy EEGeTeli Tak gw Sgn TSN LE Sy CA Roth !Se TT eh RS SeeB Re Be ene BG eT nn a BS